The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) misunderstanding of facts) The Defendant did not receive from the victim the amount of KRW 20 million from the victim, KRW 30 million under Paragraph (6) of the List of Crimes ( December 17, 2010), KRW 9 (9) ( December 23, 2010), KRW 16 (2) ( February 24, 201), and KRW 17 ( March 4, 201), and there was no signature of the Defendant on each of the above parts, even in the books submitted by the victim.

Of the 13 million won of the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment ( December 16, 2010), 34 million won, among the 13 million won of the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment, means the Defendant’s obligation to J, and the Defendant did not receive 34 million won from the victim on December 16, 2010, and thus should not be included in the amount of fraud.

According to the transaction account books prepared by the Defendant, the Defendant supplied the victim with non-performance of 356,107,650 won [the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel of KRW 342,907,450 indicated as KRW 325,925,950] from December 1, 2010 to January 31, 201. However, on the transaction account books prepared by the Defendant, the Defendant supplied the victim with non-performance of 13,200,200 won (value-added tax based on the tax invoice) as the total amount of non-performance of which the Defendant released to the victim is KRW 342,90,907,450.

(2) Around the instant case, it was difficult for the Defendant to take the economic circumstances of the Defendant due to L’s default. However, since the Defendant was provided with non-performance by many scrap metal companies other than L, it was not sufficient to supply the non-performance to the victim, and even if it was intended to secure the payment of pre-payment due to high interest prices at the time, the victim was merely paying pre-payment even though he knew of the economic difficulties of the Defendant, so there was no deception by the Defendant, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances recognized based on the records of determination of mistake of facts in paragraph (1), i.e., the Defendant submitted the victim.