The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the fraud against the victim corporation C) is not a party to the original transaction of the victim corporation C (hereinafter referred to as the "C"), but a party to the transaction, a Chinese company, is a party to the transaction, and the original transaction was suspended due to the refusal to issue a letter of credit by AC, and the defendant was not a party to the transaction, and there was no fact that the original contract was received by C, and thus, the defendant does

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The punishment sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

In full view of the following circumstances which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is determined that the defendant's fraud caused by original transactions is established

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① The C representative G stated the summary of the Defendant’s deception to process the original death and original body, and the above statement has credibility.

The Dormant G made a concrete statement as follows.

G heard that the original cost from the Defendant is paid in cash, and that the original cost is paid in cash, and that the credit is paid, and that the Defendant is able to pay the cost in advance, and that the original cost and the original cost were produced in trust.

G is well aware of the Chinese company called AC, and the defendant opened a letter of credit so that he/she can prepare a formal contract with AC, and he/she sent the defendant's staff for the examination of the original group, so he/she trusted and traded the defendant.

The statements from the investigative agency to the court of the court below are consistent, and there is no particular contradiction.

The court below made the statement.