The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant imported and sold maize feed in Vietnam, and entered into a sales contract with the victim E to the effect that “the victim is supplied with maize feed from the Defendant and sold it as an exclusive store in Seosan and Hongsung area” and received KRW 10 million as part of the down payment from the victim.

However, 15 days have passed since the victim expressed his/her intent to terminate the above total sales contract to the defendant due to his/her own circumstances, and thus, the above KRW 10 million is confiscated as a penalty for the total sales contract, and the defendant did not deceiving the victim because he/she did not have any obligation to return the above money to the victim. Even if the defendant was paid the above money as the price for receiving feed for the house, considering all circumstances such as the defendant's previous transactions abroad and management status of the company, this does not constitute deception

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles are consistent with the conclusion of the relevant regional total sales contract with the victim E, namely, (1) the Defendant had discussed about the pertinent regional total sales contract with respect to the pertinent feed of receiving and receiving house. However, the victim appears to have attempted to enter into a total sales contract only after being supplied with the Defendant and using the said feed before entering into the total sales contract, and (2) for this reason, the victim is deemed to have first paid KRW 10 million out of the total feed of receiving and receiving house as an advance, which is the amount equivalent to KRW 30 million that was requested for supply to the Defendant, and it is difficult to deem that the said money was paid as a down payment under the said total sales contract; and (3)