The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above sentence shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date the above judgment became final.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the defendant deceivings F, the representative director of the victim company, as stated in the facts charged in this case, and ordered C to deliver KRW 150 million to C as advance payment can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who was operating C (hereinafter “C”) as the meat processing company, entered into a contract with the representative director of the victim E company to supply by-products, such as local areas, etc. generated in the course of processing cattle and pigs slaughtered in return for receiving advance payment of KRW 150 million from the victim company, to the victim company for at least 20 tons each month (hereinafter “instant contract”).

However, even if the Defendant entered into the instant contract, it did not have the ability to supply by-products as agreed upon, and eventually, the Defendant supplied only by-products equivalent to KRW 19,727,600 to 87 tons until January 2015, and did not supply by-products any longer.

As such, the defendant deceiving F, the representative director of the victim company, and caused the victim company to deliver 150 million won to C under the pretext of advance payment.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case on the ground that the facts charged of this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime.

① A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) actually established and operated by the Defendant, which was difficult for C to engage in transactions under the instant contract due to provisional attachment, etc. of merts fire and marine insurance, assumed contractual obligations under the instant contract by C.