The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the fact that the former G of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) conducted a steel re-supply contract with the victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “victim Co., Ltd.”), the Defendant could not have been aware of the content of the contract, ② the Defendant Co., Ltd was actively engaged in business activities at the time and did not become aware of the risk of default, ③ the Nonparty Co., Ltd was aware of the financial standing of the Defendant Co., Ltd. at the time, ③ the fact that the Defendant Co., Ltd was operating the victim Co., Ltd., and ④ the repayment of KRW 50 million out of the price, the Defendant

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s reasoning based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant did not have the ability to pay the material to the victim at the time of concluding the steel product supply agreement with the victim through G, and the Defendant appears to have had the intent to commit the crime of defraudation, and not only can the Defendant be deemed to have deceiving the victim through G, but also can be recognized that the damage was caused by the said deception.

① As for the construction of a new outdoor parking lot conducted by the Defendant Company as an intra-company director, G did not raise any objection to the fact that the Defendant had been supplied with steel materials to be used in the said construction work. Even if the Defendant did not know of the details of the steel materials supply agreement at the time, the terms of said agreement are ordinarily supplied contracts.