All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not misleads the victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd”).

If the victim company pays the price to H (hereinafter “H”) to the Defendant Company C (hereinafter “C”), it was a trade structure in the form of receiving parts from H from the Defendant’s company (hereinafter “C”), but it was understood that the victim company immediately delivered the price to C and used it as business funds.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim company.

B) The Defendant did not individually use the funds received through H.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of illegal acquisition.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was C’s representative director, who is a business computer producer in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Around November 6, 2018, the Defendant entered into a goods contract with C to supply 17,000 computers for office work with D institutions for KRW 13,596,990,000 (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”) and entered into on December 6, 2018, with five items, including 10,000 Window 10,00 won, at the victim’s office located in Jongno-gu Seoul, for the purpose of producing a computer under the contract (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”).

At the time of the conclusion of the instant goods supply contract, the Defendant agreed to receive Winow 10 Eterrise, SDR, OD, and POWER from G through H among the goods that the victim company provided.