We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

misunderstanding of facts (as to the guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance), the Defendant did not intend to acquire the victim by deception at the time of being supplied with wireless electronic and panty equivalent to the sum of KRW 27,082,00 as shown in this part of the facts charged.

On February 22, 2012, the Defendant issued a per share sheet (R June 30, 2012, the payment date) of KRW 20 million in face value 20,000,000 from G to the victim of the Defendant’s goods payment obligation amounting to KRW 21,61,00,000, and thereafter, on March 13, 2012, the Defendant deposited KRW 20,000 as the per share sheet with G.

When the Defendant received the above goods from the victim, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the obligation to pay for the goods.

The sentencing of unfair sentencing (all of the judgment of the court below: 4 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

It is reasonable to regard that there was an agreement between the defendant and the victim to pay the goods within “Immediate” or “within several days” because the victim stated that he/she had consistently and immediately delivered the goods to pay the goods in cash. The defendant already bears the obligation equivalent to KRW 300 million against the existing business partners, etc., and even if the goods are supplied from the victim on November 201, the defendant had no intent and ability to pay the goods to the victim immediately or within several days.

The sentence of the first instance court on the unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

The judgment of the court below ex officio decided to consolidate each appeal case of the judgment below against the defendant, and each of the offenses of the judgment of the court below of this case is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

Defendant

b. prosecutor.