The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s imprisonment (three years and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. (1) Considering the fact that it is difficult to deem that the instant machinery and equipment was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff, a victim of misunderstanding of facts, H and the employees of the said H, was aware of the fact that the instant machinery and equipment was offered as a collateral for factory mortgage, the Defendant, by deceiving the said H’s employees, had been extended the repayment of the debt amounting to one billion won from the said H, and had been supplied with empty cans on credit within the extent equivalent to the said amount, thereby taking profits equivalent to the said amount.

(2) The lower court’s imprisonment (three years and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too unjustifiable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds of the following, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court.

B. The gist of deception as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: “The Defendant is not more than six types of cans with the victim company.”

B The above machinery equipment had not been notified that it had already been provided as security to the Korea Exchange Bank, and the victim company may recover KRW 1 billion from the above machinery equipment when similar to the victim company.

It is the fact that "the court made".

The Defendant consistently provided the instant mechanical equipment to the victim company as a security by means of transfer in an investigative agency and a court, and consistently notified that the instant mechanical equipment was already provided to BE, a staff member of the victim company, as security at the Korea Exchange Bank. Nevertheless, the Defendant stated that BE was not in a formal need for internal settlement of the victim company, and that it was a security by means of transfer for the instant mechanical equipment.

On the other hand, BE, a staff member of the victim company, is an additional security around January 2007.