The judgment below

The guilty part (including the acquittal part of the reasons) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

1. Of the instant facts charged, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict in regard to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and acquitted each of the facts charged, and dismissed the prosecution as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act. The lower court filed an appeal against the Defendant and the Prosecutor only against the guilty part of the lower judgment (including the part not guilty of the grounds).

Therefore, the rejection of the public prosecution for which no appeal has been filed is separated and confirmed as it is, this part is excluded from the scope of the adjudication of this Court.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (excluding the part of innocence) (hereinafter “stock company”) by which the Defendant was operated by the Defendant, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) omitted, and the two companies entered into a materials supply contract with E Co., Ltd. and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) on March 2014 and engaged in continuous transactions from that time. The Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the materials to the victim company from July 2015, 2015 to June 2016, which is the crime period indicated in the facts charged, and there is no fact of deceiving G as the operator of the victim company.

In addition, in light of the fact that G was well aware of the financial situation of D, ② the victim company continued to engage in transactions with D for a long time without suspending material supply, even though payment has been delayed since the beginning of the transaction with D, ③ the occupation, experience, etc. of G, G supplied material on the condition that the supply was settled for the following month.

Therefore, the relationship between deception and disposal can not be recognized.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of each crime of fraud against the victim company.