The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts in its judgment, even though it was possible to recognize the fact of deceiving the victim company, by stating that the Defendant was an employee of the victim company that the Defendant had concealed and directly produced the so-called “promulation” of imported fertilizers.

2) The sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged is that, at the office of “C” corporation around May 30, 2014, the Defendant is a natural organic fertilizer that was directly produced in E with respect to “I” and “J”, a fertilizer product sold by the Defendant’s employees to E.

A micro-organism produced by E is produced by adding it to I and J.

Since micro-organisms are imposed on water, it is not turfed with turfy, and it is a product that has been actually verified at golf courses.

In E, the delivery period to the degree of lock shall be given because the micro-organism is directly produced.

“.” The purport was “.

However, the facts are as follows: (a) “I” used the term “I” in which the fertilizer imported from Vietnam was re-established in the name of “E”, and “J” used the chemical fertilizer that combines domestic and foreign fertilizers from the wife, which was supplied by Enbnbnbn, and then re-established it into the name of E, thereby making “boming into the name of E”; and (b) there was no fact that the Defendant produced the micro-organism, such as the victim’s talk, and made and produced the fertilizer products by adding it to “I” and “J”.

The Defendant deceivings employees of “C” as above, and he received KRW 11,495,00 as the price of supply from the said employees, and acquired KRW 18,249,00 as the price of supply on May 29, 2015 and acquired them by deception.

B. The lower court’s judgment.