All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (a fraud) had the ability and intent to pay the steel bars at the time of receiving the delivery from the injured party, and there was no intention to commit the crime of deception and deception.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles of the defendant 1) Whether fraud is established through deception of transaction goods is determined by whether the injured company had intention to acquire goods from the victimized company by making a false statement as if the injured company had no intent or ability to repay the price of goods as of the time of transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5265, Jan. 24, 2003; 2002Do5265, Jan. 24, 2003). Unless the defendant does not confession, the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective element of fraud, should be determined by taking into account such objective circumstances as the defendant's financial power before and after the crime, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions, which is established by willful negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do3515, Dec. 10, 2004; 2007Do817, Jan. 18, 2008).