The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the price of the fireworks around August 2013 2.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of sentencing) 1) misunderstanding of the facts, ① As to the fraud of KRW 20 million, which was paid by C around August 2013 in the judgment of the original court, the Defendant, as part of the business operation with C, was actually supplied by C to E, and the Defendant was ordered to pay the above KRW 20 million to H to the representative of the F Co., Ltd., and thereafter, did not receive delivery of the said KRW 20 million due to the lack of good tide. Thus, there was no deception by C.

② As to the embezzlement of fishery products equivalent to KRW 5,750,00,000, which was paid by the transferee in the case of acquisition by transfer on January 20, 2014 in the judgment of the original instance, the amount actually consumed by the Defendant is not more than KRW 1,50,000,000. 2) The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) which was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On January 2013, the Defendant: (a) on the part of the Defendant’s fraud part; (b) around January 2013, the facts charged, the Defendant operated E, a fishery products distributor, in the name of the victim, in the victim C and the Dong-gu, Busan, Dong-gu, and 2; (c) the victim performed the business of raising funds for purchasing and selling fishery products; and (d) the Defendant agreed to share or bear profits and losses arising from the business of purchasing and selling fishery products at a rate of

The defendant, regardless of E, shall receive additional money from the injured party in the name of active down payment, and regardless of E, he shall pay it as the price for a contract for the supply of the fireworks that the defendant has entered into in person with the F of the Dispute Resolution. On August 2013, 2013, the first police officer did not demand the down payment in the Dispute ResolutionF and did not intend to use it for E’s active business even if he did not receive the money from the injured party, it is necessary to add 20 million won from the F of the Dispute Resolution.

“Falsely speaking and deceiving them.”