The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) is too unreasonable in view of the fact that the Defendant only participated in the fraud according to the direction of M, the Chairperson, as an employee of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and did not actually operate C, the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the degree of the Defendant’s participation, the lower court determined that the Defendant, who was in general control of the operation of C, exercised all relevant decision-making authority in the overall process before and after the crime, including the process of concluding a contract with the victims of the instant case, the delivery process of the goods, and the process of disposal of the goods supplied, and that M did not have any evidence to deem that

However, in full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the circumstances inferred therefrom, it is reasonable to view that the defendant entered into a contract with the victims to supply goods according to the direction of M as the actual operator C and received or disposed of the goods.

① On February 10, 201 for the purpose of the wholesale and retail business of computer parts, C was established on February 10, 201, and the representative director was I after September 15, 201 at the time of its establishment, and M used the position of the president and the Defendant respectively.

② Although V and I were registered as a representative director, they did not exercise a real authority. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant entered into a contract for goods supply with the victimized company, holding the official seal of the representative director, etc.

③ In the absence of the intent or ability to pay the price of the goods, the injured company filed a complaint against M, Defendant, and I with the content that the company was acquired by fraud by being supplied with computer equipment equivalent to the total amount of KRW 445,113,00 from them. M was written as C’s de facto manager or operator, and Defendant as C’s employee.

(2) 5 pages of documentary evidence) . 4. E in the police, “M is a point of C.