A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The point of occupational embezzlement, along with the fraud, was judged in the trial, but the prosecutor was exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties because the prosecutor did not appeal this part, so this part of the judgment of the court below is not followed and it is not judged again.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (as to the fraud among the selective facts charged), the victim stated in the prosecutor's investigation that "the defendant sent 183,908,450 won to the G account as the defendant has to pay the price of the goods to G corporation (hereinafter "G") and presented a written estimate for the price of the goods." However, considering the fact that the actual price of the goods the defendant has to pay to G was 128,061,780 won, if the defendant did not specify the remittance amount and the account number, it is difficult for the victim to accurately transfer KRW 183,908,450 to G account. If the defendant did not specify the remittance amount and the account number, the possibility that the defendant prepared a separate estimate and presented it to the victim in addition to the written estimate that he prepared later by G employee M, the defendant also recognized that the defendant had the victim wired the victim to transfer the amount less than the actual goods price.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The prosecutor amended the indictment and found the Defendant not guilty on the charge of fraud at the trial below.

1. Paragraph 1.