The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the summary of the grounds for appeal (definites and misapprehension of legal principles), the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant acquired the amount of damage by deceiving the victim as an adviser as if he had transferred such new reproduction technology (hereinafter “new reproduction technology”), is sufficiently recognized, even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to transfer the payment-based reproduction technology (hereinafter “new reproduction technology”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case on the grounds of insufficient proof of crime, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment

2. On November 26, 2012, the Defendant in the instant facts charged at the victim D office located in Ansan-si, Seoul-si, Seoul-si, and the representative director of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. in the instant case, “The Defendant has paid-in regeneration technology that combines carbon and labor materials in the Republic of Korea. If the distribution complex is reproduced with the world’s first new technology, it may be recovered at a higher efficiency than the existing distribution complex. At present, there are people operating a closed-type recycling business, and there are profits worth KRW 30 million or KRW 50 million or more, and KRW 10 million or more. In addition, the business success may be achieved if the project is carried out. Moreover, the aforementioned new technology is transferred. The purport was to request the representative director of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. to the effect that “The amount of KRW 70 million or more as advisory fees for the transfer of the technology that will be transferred is changed.”

However, in fact, the payment-industrial reproductive technology, which combines carbon and labor materials, has not been completed. Therefore, even if the defendant receives money from the Dispute Settlement Bank D as a advisory fee for technology transfer, he/she did not have any intent or ability to transfer such new technology.

Nevertheless, the defendant, by deceiving the representative director E of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., received 3,3460,000 won from (ju)D to the post office account in the name of the defendant on November 27, 2012, and acquired it through deception.

3. The lower court’s judgment.