The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

[Judgment as to the Reasons for Appeal] The summary of the Reasons for Appeal was as follows: (a) at the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not make a false statement on the victim E (the representative F; hereinafter “victim E”)’s ability to produce the instant product; and (b) there was a claim for unpaid recovery amounting to approximately KRW 210 million; and (c) there was a claim for unpaid recovery amounting to KRW 210 million, so the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed amount to the victim company.

(De Facto Error). The sentencing of the lower court (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(F) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant at the time of the instant case, even if the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay KRW 50 million to the victim company by the due date for the manufacture of the instant product or the due date for payment, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had the intent or ability to pay the victim company the amount of KRW 50 million as if he had the intent or ability to pay such amount, and that there was an intention

① On May 2013, the Defendant, victim company, and G (representative director I) company operating S entered into a consignment agreement on the manufacturing of the instant products, such as “at least 30,000 G Co., Ltd. entrusts the victim company with the manufacture, etc. of the instant products (one thousand and one hundred won per outlined commission), and the victim company again delegate the manufacturing of the instant products to the Defendant.”

(Evidence No. 15-18 pages). F stated at the prosecutor’s office that “The Defendant borrowed the money in return for an entrustment contract to lend the money in return for the benefit of 50 million won.”

(Evidence Records No. 272). The Defendant, at the police station, developed G and LED lamps located in a large exhibition around May 2013, and entered into a contract for manufacturing consignment and was in the production of the product. The Defendant borrowed money on the condition that this contract was manufactured by the victim company and subcontracted to the low company.