The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant deceivings the victim without intention or ability to pay food expenses and concluded a contract for the supply of entrusted meals with the victim, but the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant on a different premise.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor applied for permission to change the indictment of this case on an exchange basis as stated in the following facts constituting a crime. Since this court permitted this, the subject of the judgment of the court below was changed, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows, since there is a ground for ex officio reversal as seen above.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant education center”) who actually operated the said education center.

Around July 2006, the Defendant, at the time of the establishment of the pertinent Education Center, was equipped with educational facilities by means of loans, and the volume of KRW 1 billion from her natives, was additionally loaned from financial institutions, and invested in the said Education Center, the volume of KRW 300 million was KRW 300 million each year. On July 2009, the pertinent Education Center’s building rent was in arrears with KRW 150 million, and even though it was a situation in which E, an entrusted supplier of the said Education Center, was unable to pay the amount of KRW 130 million, the current status and actual status of the operation of the Education Center, such as the deficit situation of the Education Center and the failure to pay the amount of meal services, was not notified to the victim.

As such, the Defendant is operating status of the Education Center.