The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles did not borrow KRW 50 million from the injured party, but did not know that a contract for exporting products supplied by the injured party to China was concluded through the injured party's company, and that part of the amount was paid in advance, and there was no deception that the injured party would make a full payment or the right to purchase new products would be paid if the injured party borrowed the money necessary for the development of new products.

In addition, at the time of receiving KRW 50 million from one injured party, the defendant had a will to pay the defendant with self-sufficiency and repayment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. The lower court’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles reveals the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated: (i) the Defendant was aware of the receipt of KRW 100 million by the policy funds; (ii) the Defendant gave out the funds necessary for the development of new products; (iii) the Defendant gave out the funds necessary for the development of new products; and (iv) the Defendant was aware of the fact that the victim was aware of the receipt of KRW 100 million by the policy funds; and (v) the victim who believed the lending KRW 50 million out of the policy funds to the Defendant; and (v) the Defendant was not adequate financial resources to the extent that the Defendant was unable to pay the monthly salary of the employees at the time of borrowing the said funds; and (iii) the Defendant did not make efforts necessary for the development of new products after receiving the said funds from the victim; and (iv) the Defendant’s use of the said funds by deceiving the victim.

Based on the judgment, the defendant was convicted.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the above evidence, that is, ① the victim, around June 2013, spent less power to deliver the Defendant’s product to the Defendant to the Defendant.