The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and nine months.

Of the facts charged of this case (attached Form 2)

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. For the following reasons, it cannot be said that the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the price of the goods at the time of receiving the goods from the victims from among misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles [2017Da4675]

(1) The Defendant had already paid an amount equivalent to the purchase price of the goods supplied on credit while taking over and operating Mat.

The amount stated in this part of the facts charged is only part of the remainder.

In particular, a victim arising from a transaction with CFmate (hereinafter referred to as “CFE”) among these facts charged is only four victims due to a transaction with two or more CFE (hereinafter referred to as “CFE”).

The defendant has paid a number of customers the full amount of goods.

Specifically, the BS listed in the judgment of the court below [Attachment 1] is the amount of less than 5% of the above 1 billion won as a person who had been engaged in a transaction equivalent to a total of 1 billion won between the defendant and the defendant from 12 years ago, and the amount of 46,648,000 won stated in the facts charged of this case is the amount of less than 1 billion won.

It is inappropriate to deem that the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the price of the goods solely on the ground that the defendant had been continuously supplied by the customer in excess of his/her obligation at the beginning of the acquisition of the Sheart.

Article 12(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Even if the obligation remains and is transferred, it cannot be ruled out that the transferee takes over the existing obligation overlappingly and the defendant still bears the responsibility for the repayment of the existing obligation, and the defendant has been able to choose whether or not to assume the obligation of the transferee according to the intention of the transaction partner, so the fact of the transfer of the set cannot be said to have no intention or ability of the defendant to pay the price.