The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserted that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of the lower judgment on the grounds that the contents of the list of crimes in the lower judgment are different from those of the written indictment in this case, but this seems to be merely an error of pointing out a clerical error in the list of crimes in the lower judgment’s judgment. Therefore,

misunderstanding of facts (with regard to fraud in the original judgment), the Defendant had the intention or ability to pay the price at the time of receiving the goods supplied or the check discount money from the victims of this case.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud in part of the assertion of mistake of facts, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not confession. The intent of the crime is not a conclusive intention, but a

In particular, the establishment of fraud by defraudation in the transaction of goods should be determined by whether there was an intentional intent to acquire goods from the victim by making a false statement as if the victim would pay the price of goods, although there is no intention or ability to repay the price of goods to the defendant as of the time of the transaction.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2864, Jun. 27, 2006). In full view of the following facts and circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant supplied goods from the victim with the goods and acquired them by deception even if the Defendant did not have the intent and ability to settle the price at the time of receiving the goods from the victim may be recognized.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below which recognized that the defendant has a criminal intent to acquire the fraud cannot be said to have an error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

(1) The defendant.