The judgment of the court below (excluding the part dismissing an application for compensation) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. The lower court’s judgment dismissed all the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and each of the above applications for compensation was immediately finalized.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which rejected the application for compensation is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the defendant case

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserted misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the fact that he was able to obtain the Korean total sales right of the HH company as he was able to exercise influence over the H company of China due to the relationship with the “G (Korean senior officials)” and thus, there was no deception as stated in the instant facts charged, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty has erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, or by misunderstanding the legal principles of fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part.

The court below found the defendant guilty on the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to view that the public official who can exercise influence over the H company was aware of the public official, and even if not, there is no circumstance to deem that Chinese public official granted the Korea Federation of H company's products to the defendant on the part of the defendant, and there is no reason to view that the public official of China could have granted the Korea Federation of H company's products.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below's judgment of the party shall be conducted between the defendant's side (E) and the victim's side (C).