The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant maintained the outstanding amount of KRW 200 million with the victim company and continued transaction relations for at least ten years; the Defendant immediately repaid approximately 50% of the price to the goods supplied by the victim company from October 2016 to December 2016, the date and time limit of the instant facts charged; and the Defendant sold certain goods supplied by the victim company at a price lower than the market price to other companies; however, this was only sold goods at a low price to prevent the Defendant from losing trust with the customer who placed the order; the Defendant does not intentionally sell the goods at a low price; the representative of the other transaction company of the Defendant’s “F” was accused of the Defendant in a case in which the Defendant filed a complaint against the Defendant in fraud, the lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant could not have received the goods from the victim company due to deception or sentenced the Defendant guilty of a mistake by misapprehending legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant argued the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s argument in detail at the bottom of the application column of statutes. Examining the judgment of the lower court in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges in this case on the ground that it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had dolusent intent to acquire goods from the victim company at least at least at the time of transaction with the victim company around October 2016, on the grounds that the lower court’s aforementioned judgment was consistent with the evidence duly adopted