The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant, who was the representative director of C, did not pay the original payment to the defendant from the beginning as a result of a sudden reduction in the sales amount of C, as the victim D, a business partner of C, which was the representative director of C, did not have any intention or ability to pay the original payment to the defendant from the beginning.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

The sentence of imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the finding of a mistake of fact, the following facts can be recognized:

Since July 2003, F, in the trade name of “R”, was operating a private company that manufactures paper cups, paper containers, etc. (However, business registration was completed in the name of S) with the trade name of “C”, supply originals to the Defendant (hereinafter “C”), and F, on July 26, 2006, established D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and the Defendant established C (hereinafter “C”) on February 11, 2008, even after C’s establishment, the transaction of originals on both sides was continued until C’s default on payment on July 5, 2013.

F On August 30, 2012, the traffic accident occurred on August 30, 2012, and for about 3 months, the F had been in an unknown state, and TW, the F's wife, operated during the same period.

From the beginning of September 2012, the Defendant borrowed cash to the Bank, “I will not present a payment proposal of a promissory note issued and delivered in the name of C” to F and T, at a different time from the payment date of the promissory note from the beginning of September 2012. Unless otherwise, the Defendant made several statements to the effect that the payment of the promissory note was due.

On January 24, 2013, the Defendant: “C has sufficient means to pay the price of the goods in its original site. Do not be able to see and supply the original site.”