The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the fact-finding fraud, the court below found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case even though the Defendant did not pay F the boiler price to F, but did not have the intention of defraudation, and the Defendant’s wife G had used the adultery in relation to the charge of adultery, and there was an error of mistake of facts.

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

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. (1) As to the fraud, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession, the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal fraud, is bound 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 performing transaction before and after the crime. In the commodity transaction relationship, the establishment of fraud by defraudation shall be determined by whether there was an intentional intent to acquire goods from the victim by making a false statement as if the Defendant would pay the price of supplied goods to the victim even though there is no intent or ability to pay the price of supplied goods at the time of transaction. Therefore, it shall not be deemed a crime of fraud by making it impossible to pay the price of supplied goods in a lump sum due to changes in economic conditions after delivery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5265, Jan. 24, 2003). However, if the Defendant had a criminal intent to commit a fraudulent act at the time of a variety of transactions or agreements with the victims, it shall be established as long as the victim acquired the property by deception.

Even if the payment was made in part or later, it does not affect the establishment of a crime of fraud.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2319 delivered on June 29, 2001). (2) The following facts are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the original court.