The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

A. Defendant 1 asserts that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts in the judgment of the court below, which found that the Defendant, by deceiving D and being provided food equivalent to KRW 620,000 from June 20, 2013 to July 12, 2013, did not have received food equivalent to KRW 620,000, by deceiving D, and otherwise, the Defendant was provided food equivalent to the above amount during the above period. 2) The Defendant asserts that the sentence of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (fine 700,000 won) of the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor 1 asserts that, in full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts, even if the Defendant had sufficiently recognized that he had received food equivalent to KRW 436,00,00 by deceiving D from June 5, 2013 to June 18, 2013, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged, and that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misconception of facts, and thus, it is unreasonable to impose an unfair sentencing sentence on the part of the judgment of the court below.

2. Determination

A. From June 20, 2013, the Defendant of this part of the facts charged as to this part of the judgment of the court below, the Defendant, at the “E” restaurant for the victim D’s operation “E” located in the cafeteria, at the end of 2013, made a false statement that “If the victim performs construction works near the restaurant, but enters the details of food, amount, etc. in the transaction account book, he would make a payment once in one month.” However, the Defendant at the time, the Defendant Company F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) to which the Defendant belongs (hereinafter “instant company”) received a claim for progress payment of KRW 60 million from the Taesung Comprehensive Construction, and the dispute related thereto was pending, and thus there was a risk of not receiving the construction cost properly, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the price normally even

Nevertheless, the defendant deceiving the victim and deceiving him.