The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the legal principles, victim E remitted money to the account in the name of D Co., Ltd., and D Co., Ltd used all of the money as operating funds, such as salary, etc., and the Defendant was merely an adviser in charge of business in D Co., Ltd.

Therefore, Article 347(2) of the Criminal Act, rather than Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, is applicable since the instant crime constitutes a case in which the person who conducted deception does not coincide with the person who acquired the benefit therefrom.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's authority, the prosecutor tried to examine the facts charged in this case ex officio, and then maintained the facts charged in this case in the first instance, and applied in preliminary application Article 347 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act as stated in the following "a summary of the facts charged and evidence" as stated in the facts charged: (a) the court applied for the amendment of an indictment with each addition as stated in the "a summary of the facts charged and evidence"; and (b) the subject of the judgment by this court was changed, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in this respect.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts charged

A. A. Around May 28, 2015, the main facts of the facts charged are as follows: (a) On May 28, 2015, the Defendant stated that “Around May 28, 2015, the Defendant would be able to enter into a contract with the victim E to receive 200,000 by-products of chickens from the D office where the Defendant working for the Defendant in Seosan City Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., in his/her liquor.”

However, the defendant was operated at the time of fact

D Employees' wages are for a contract for the supply of by-products from victims, as the company's management status has deteriorated to the extent that the employee's wages are not paid from time to time.