The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the defendant's confessions by the prosecution, E's consistent statement, the statement of the complainants (including somewhat inconsistent parts), etc., it is recognized that the defendant deceivings the complainant without the intention or ability to pay the price and received the delivery of the contact seal.

The judgment of the court below differs from the judgment of the court below, which erred by mistake of facts.

Judgment

In the facts charged of this case, the Defendant, as the actual operator of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) in the shipbuilding machinery manufacturing industry, made a false statement on May 201, 201, that “The supply price of goods to be supplied by the end of the following month after the supply of the contact paper to the victim F through E through the employees of the said company, within the office of the Defendant Co., Ltd. located in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si.”

However, there was no intention or ability to pay the price even if the defendant is supplied by the injured party because the management of the above company was proper at the time and the debt reaches KRW 200 million.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) obtained the supply of 4,039,750 won from the victim on May 15, 2016; (c) around 6,512,00 won on June 18, 2016; and (d) obtained the supply of 12,140,70 won on July 20, 2016.

In the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant was an operator, but was in charge of the supply-related affairs, and that the Defendant did not speak about the terms of supply to the victim or deliver it through E.

The court below held that the defendant company and the victim did not prove the criminal intent of deception and deception on the following grounds, although it is acknowledged that the defendant company's financial situation aggravation and the non-payment are true, the victim's statement and the statement of employees belonging to the defendant company did not prove the criminal intent of deception and deception.

Based on the judgment, not guilty of the facts charged of this case was pronounced.

(1) A victim shall be a victim in the original judgment.