The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant as the representative director of D's company guilty of the facts charged against the defendant, the representative director of D's company, despite the intent and ability to pay film advertising fees to the victim F's corporation, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

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

A. The summary of the instant facts charged was operated by the Defendant from March 2010 to October 201, 201, thereby distributing film import, etc.

The Defendant requested the Victim F Co., Ltd. F, a victim of E’s operation from April 2010 to November 1, 2010, to produce and install an advertisement for 6 film, such as the attached list of crimes, and the settlement amount was to be paid within one month after the advertisement installation work.

However, in fact, D had the obligation to pay approximately KRW 1.4 billion to G of the film board price, and there was no intention or ability to pay the victim the cost of producing the film advertising if the film shown in the process of importing and distributing the film reaches approximately KRW 1.8 billion.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, had the victim produce and install a film advertisement in Part 6 from April 5, 2010 to November 15, 2010, paid only KRW 6,402,00 out of the price of KRW 40,557,00, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 40,557,000.

B. The lower court’s judgment based on the evidence as indicated in its holding, follows: ① each film advertising price of this case is the money that should be paid regardless of the motion picture entertainment; ② K Co., Ltd., the parent company of the Defendant Company, enters the legal management procedure around March 2010.