The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was aware of the fact that the contract between J and I was destroyed after he remitted the money that he received from the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) to “L” according to the direction of J, and there was no intention to acquire the money.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, as Russia’s nationality foreigner, has been working as the staff of the Seo-gu corporation in Busan from July 2009, and has been in charge of the import and export-related business of foreign fishery products, and has been acting as a broker for the import business of foreign fishery products for other domestic fishery products than the above E corporation.

On May 16, 2011, the Defendant, upon receiving a request from the representative G of the Victim F to conduct an import brokerage from an authorized person, conducted the operation of the “H”, which is a foreign company, and sold in the “I”, approximately 47 tons of U.S. dollars 342,287 (limited to KRW 379 million), via the “J”, a broker trading company, and ordered the J and F to enter into a sales contract with the authorized person on May 16, 201. On May 17, 2011, the Defendant issued PPYB/L (bill) stating F as the consignee, to F’s representative G.

According to the terms and conditions of the above contract, the F shall transfer the revenue amount of the authorized household to the account of J not later than May 18, 2011; however, due to the F’s circumstances, the F’s representative G sought understanding about delay of the payment from the Defendant; and under the Defendant’s understanding, the said G applied for the transfer of USD 342,287 to the account of J’s foreign exchange bank at around 14:00 on May 23, 201, the said amount was deposited into the account of J’s foreign exchange bank on the same day.

However, at the time, the Defendant did not intend to deliver approximately 47 tons of the authorized sPY B/L specified in the COPY (bill of lading) (hereinafter “instant authorized sPY”).