The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment 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. Error of fact (1) The victim has made a scrap metal transaction on the condition that he deposits an advance KRW 100 million with the defendant. The victim has made an additional deposit of KRW 70 million under the above contract conditions in order to collect advance KRW 100 million in accordance with the above contract conditions in the process of receiving the scrap metal continuously from the defendant, and there is no fact that the defendant deceivings the victim and demands to deposit KRW 70 million in advance.

(2) After receiving KRW 70 million from the victim, the Defendant and the purchaser of the scrap metal caused a problem in the unit price and quality of the scrap metal between the Defendant and the purchaser of the scrap metal, the Defendant was unable to purchase the scrap metal from the purchaser of the scrap metal, which led to the failure to resolve the problem. This led to the Defendant’s failure to supply the scrap metal to the victim.

After that, the defendant was unable to return the money received from the victim because the business operation of the defendant was difficult, and it does not have any intention or ability to deliver the scrap metal to the victim from the beginning.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts is based on whether the defendant made a payment of KRW 70 million to the victim (whether the victim has traded an advance KRW 100 million on the condition that the victim deposited in the defendant), and the following circumstances recognized by the court below by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the court below, i.e., ① when the victim makes a payment to the defendant for the scrap metal, the victim only traded on the condition that the defendant delivers the scrap metal equivalent to the payment, and there was no transaction on the condition that the advance payment is deposited 100 million, and on April 26, 2010, the defendant is in the same