The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant failed to pay the price for the goods to the victim while operating E, but around November 201, the Defendant’s active property exceeded the negative property, and the Defendant continued to pay the price for the attempted goods to the victim even after 2012.

However, since the defendant was unable to recover approximately KRW 300 million from his customer, financial difficulties make it difficult to repay all outstanding amounts to the victim, the defendant did not have the intention to acquire it by fraud.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the Defendant guilty, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, it is determined that the Defendant and the defense counsel had the criminal intent to obtain the defraudation after November 201. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

1) On the 10th day of the following month, the Defendant agreed to be supplied with Aluminium construction materials from the victim on May 14, 201, and was supplied with Aluminium construction materials from May 14, 201. However, on May 14, 201, upon commencement of the transaction, the Defendant paid only KRW 106,158,217 to KRW 357,89,604,000 for KRW 350,505,314 on June 5, 2011, and on June 106, 2011, the balance of the unpaid goods payment began to have been paid only KRW 40 million on August 4, 201, but the unpaid goods payment amount to KRW 357,89,604,00 until December 10, 2011, according to the initial agreement, the Defendant was unable to repay the said amount to the financial situation at the time of the Defendant’s operation until December 36, 97, 984.

3. The defendant is against the customer.