A. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant was cancelled the right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 85 million from the injured party and was supplied with the goods equivalent to KRW 34,562,017. However, the Defendant did not intend to acquire the goods by deception as inevitable during the course of transaction.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a prison term of eight months, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty 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. The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the facts, found the following circumstances: (i) the Defendant, while operating a pesticide company with the name of pesticide company C, was liable for outstanding amount in the course of receiving goods from the victim Company C; (ii) the Defendant terminated the right to collateral equivalent to KRW 85 million with respect to the Defendant’s type E-owned real estate as collateral; (iii) the Defendant, an employee of the victim, at first on May 2016, cancelled the above right to collateral to use the bank; (iv) the Defendant provided the Defendant with KRW 20 million deposit in the office of pesticide company C as collateral; and (v) proposed to re-establish the claim amount of KRW 30 million with the maximum amount of KRW 30 million with respect to the above real estate owned by E as collateral; and (v) prepared a plan for re-establishment of mortgage (the investigation record No. 2440, May 16, 201; and (v) the Defendant provided the Defendant with a new bond to the victim from around 1500.

In light of the fact that the defendant received goods equivalent to KRW 34,562,017 from the injured party upon request, etc., the defendant is each of the instant cases.