The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is not aware of the fact (the part 2 of the judgment of the court below) that he was supplied with livestock products by the Victim Posing Day Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”), and the Defendant did not deceiving the Victim Co., Ltd., and had the intent and ability to pay the amount at the time of receiving the livestock products from the victim, so the Defendant cannot be found to have obtained the intent by deception.

The judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances as a whole, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant was provided with livestock products from the victim company by deceiving the victim company as if he were aware of the fact that the defendant was unable to properly repay even if he was supplied with livestock products by the victim company, at least dolusently, while recognizing the fact that the defendant would not be able to fully repay the amount of goods.

I would like to say.

Ultimately, there is intention to commit deception and fraud by the defendant.

The judgment of the court below that determined that there was an error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

1) On July 2015, 2015, H of the victim company consistently from investigative agencies to this court, and the Defendant made a phone call to himself/herself, thereby establishing a recent company.

As imported meat is required to be supplied to a livestock product processing factory, it is different to supply the imported livestock products. The price will be paid without molding for a week.

The statement was made to the effect that the Defendant’s horse was trusted and traded on the part of the Defendant.

2) When the Defendant receives livestock products from around October 2014, it is unreasonable for the Defendant to pay the price of supplied goods to a customer by the method of converting them into the method of selling them at a lower price than the supply price.