The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant D.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);

A. Although the laundrys written in the facts charged are purchased and accepted by Defendant A for KRW 187 million and their value does not amount to KRW 420 million, the Defendants deceptioned the victim company regarding the value of the laundrys by submitting a false estimate in which the acquisition cost of the laundry machines was written at KRW 420 million to the victim company, even though the value does not reach KRW 420 million.

B. Although the aforementioned laundry machines are not owned by Defendant D, the Defendants, by submitting a false estimate and tax invoice in the name of the owner of the said laundry machines to the victim company as if the owner was Defendant D, deceiving the victim company regarding the ownership relationship of the said laundry machines. Employees and lease brokers in charge of the business of the victim company and knew the aforementioned circumstances.

Even if the representative of the victim company entered into a lease contract with no knowledge, the crime of fraud is established against the victim company.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case [criminal record] Defendant C was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for embezzlement in the Busan District Court’s Vice- Branch on January 20, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 29, 2017.

【Criminal Facts】

Defendant

A, B, and C provide Defendant A with the capability to repair laundry machines and to operate laundry factories from early 2013 to early 2013, and Defendant B is in charge of financing and business, Defendant C is a person who operates a mutually washing factory called “F” in the form of the same business by investing laundry machines and funds, and Defendant D is a person who is engaged in the laundry repair business in the trade name of “G”.

Defendant

A, B, and C indicated on April 2013 as the first, first, first, second, and second, second, second, second, following the second, second, following the continuous washing machine on April 2013, but it appears to be a clerical error in “six, etc.”.

(hereinafter referred to as “laundry machine of this case”).