The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 12 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts as to the acquittal portion of the reason), the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged and acquired KRW 100 million from the victim can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of acquiring KRW 50 million, which was used for personal purposes, and found the Defendant not guilty of the remaining part of acquiring KRW 50 million. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the part of the lower judgment was not guilty, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant (unfair punishment) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. On June 16, 2014, the summary of this part of the facts charged was sentenced by the Seoul Southern District Court to 8 months of imprisonment for fraud and 2 years of suspended execution, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 14, 2015.

(State) On February 11, 2014, the Defendant stated that the Defendant would pay KRW 100,000 to the Victim G from the F Office in the operation of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D located in the Seocho-gu, Incheon, by the introduction of E, to the extent of February 28, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant would allow the Victim G to engage in the business of receiving scrap metal from H from the H unit to the extent of KRW 10,000 per ton per ton of the scrap metal.” On February 11, 2014, the Defendant sold KRW 10,000 tons to the Victim at the above office that the Defendant purchased from H through I, State, J, and K (State) from H to the Foundation.

‘The sales contract' has made the contents of the sales contract.

However, at that time H did not plan the sale of scrap metal to I and did not actually exist. As such, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the scrap metal even if he borrowed money from the victim because it was impossible to supply the scrap metal from H.

The Defendant is identical to this.