All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (1) were supplied with food materials as raw materials by the victims for the purpose of the supply of bread. The Defendants were supplied with food materials by the victims. The Defendants did not have the intention of deception after the supply of the goods due to the difficulty in inventory disposal due to the unilateral reduction in quantity by the ordering place. The victims knew of the financial situation of the Defendants company, and there was a prior understanding that in the event that inventory disposal does not take place, the Defendants did not deceiving the victims.

(2) The lower court’s punishment against the illegal Defendants (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendants’ assertion of mistake, the fact that the Defendants had received food materials by deceiving the victims intentionally by deception can be acknowledged.

① On March 2016, the Defendants concluded a supply contract with a Z and a milk breab. However, when the Z was at issue in the process of developing new products, the Defendants refused the receipt of the breab produced by the Defendants, and thereby, caused substantial disruptions to the Defendants’ production plans.

However, prior to the conclusion of the supply contract with the Z, the Defendants received large amounts of food materials from the victim LAF, and reselled them to S on the date of supply.

Therefore, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have commercialized food materials ex post facto due to the reduction in the quantity of the ordering office.

(2) In the first time, the Defendants first ordered a small amount of food materials, and began to place a large volume of orders from January 19, 2016.

This is also the case of the victim I.