A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. The interior construction of the interior works of the office of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) by O, who is the interior fishery business operator, is responsible for mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the fraud against victims E), and the victim was awarded a contract only for the supply of households and furnitures by O.

The Defendant paid the amount of KRW 160,000,000 to O, including the cost of household and house supply, but only the O did not deliver it to the victim.

In addition, at the time of being supplied with furnitures and furnitures by the victim, there was a very good business prospect, such as attracting many investments, and the amount of the investment could be fully repaid for the victim's furnitures and furnitures.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant deceivings the victim about the intent or ability of payment with the criminal intent of defraudation.

B. The imprisonment of the first instance court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

According to Article 19(2) of the Rules on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, even if the summons of the defendant is made by public notice in the trial proceedings of the first instance, the court is required to have the defendant summoned by public notice in order to hold a trial without the defendant's statement more than two times.

Therefore, in a case where a defendant who was summoned by public notice was absent, the trial proceedings may proceed in the absence of the defendant, only when the defendant had been absent by public notice after re-determination of the defendant by public notice.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094, May 13, 2011). According to records, the first instance court is not present at the court of first instance and is not served with a writ of summons, etc. of the Defendant, while the Defendant was present at the court of first instance and was tried at the court of first instance as the instant case, on February 10, 2012.