The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. In light of the gist of the grounds for appeal (the sentencing of the prosecutor) in light of the fact that the amount of damage caused by the Defendant’s instant crime reaches approximately KRW 200 million, and that in the case of the crime of fraud against the victim H, it can be deemed that the Defendant actively induced the victim due to the lack of the fact that the Defendant was ordered by the Chinese automobile company in itself, and that the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of suspended execution in the period of six months) is too unreasonable

2. It would be reasonable to take into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant, while making the instant investigation and trial process, stated the facts in a net order; and (b) recognized the facts of the offense and divided the errors; (c) the Defendant paid or repaid KRW 10 million to the victims D before the commencement of the investigation; and (d) KRW 42 million to the victims H before the commencement of the investigation; and (c) the Defendant appears to have completed the payment of the principal amount equivalent to the principal amount of damage late after concluding an agreement with the victims during the lower trial.

However, the defendant has repeatedly committed the crime of fraud by defrauding the machinery and money which amounts to approximately KRW 200 million in a short term, and the quality of such crime is not weak, and it is also not appropriate to commit the crime.

In addition, the defendant's previous convictions four times, and the previous convictions were three times (the most recent criminal convictions in 2007). After the defendant was prosecuted for a prolonged damage recovery due to the victim's complaint, the agreement and recovery of damage was made during the trial of the court below and the victim's recovery was made in part during the trial of the court of the court below, and the victim H still did not recover significant damage that the victim would have suffered due to delayed damage recovery. In the judgment of the court of the court below, the victim H tried to punish the defendant that "the defendant did not comply with the promise even if the defendant had been notarized before the victim's complaint was filed, and the defendant did not have any false and reflective behavior."