A. Defendant 1) When processing the original yarn 13,736 km supplied to the victim by a mistake of facts, Defendant 1 ought to go to the original 18,300 km. However, the victim only supplied the original 13,573 km to the Defendant and did not go through the settlement procedure thereof, and the Defendant did not pay the Defendant a full-time processing fee to the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on erroneous determination of facts. 2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, three years of probation, probation, and three hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On December 2012, 2012, the summary of the facts charged of the instant case stated that “The Defendant would immediately pay the cost for the management of the vessel to a customer designated by the internal government by processing it as a kitchen for the supply of the vessel,” and that “The Defendant would immediately pay the cost for the operation of the instant case to a customer designated by the internal government after processing it as a kitchen for the supply of the vessel.”

However, the Defendant had no special property at the time, and was in excess of the obligation, such as the original amount of KRW 15.8 million to be paid to D, the freight rate of KRW 17 million to be paid to E, and the amount of goods to be paid to F, and the amount of KRW 210 million to be paid to F, so even if the Defendant was supplied with the original amount from the victim, there was no intention or ability to pay the said amount.

Nevertheless, according to relevant evidence of around January 2013, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) processed the bectos 13,575,200 Won in a way that the victim would be equivalent to KRW 32,575,200; and (c) supplied the victim with the raw yarn on or around December 2012; and (d) the victim sent the said raw yarn to the customer of the Defendant on or around January 2013.

Accordingly, the prosecutor's time is the same.