The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant made a confession of all the crimes and misunderstandings, the fact that there is no criminal record of the same kind as the instant case, the fact that he/she must support his/her wife and her children, the fact that the instant crime was committed in order to bring about losses by supplying the victim at low prices, and that no punishment has been imposed against the G in collusion with the Defendant for which the amount of the defrauded was divided by 50%.

However, the Defendant, in collusion with G, who is an employee of the victim, was not guilty in light of the method of crime, such as deceiving the proceeds of livestock products by claiming for the amount and price in collusion with G, and the amount acquired through deception during the remaining five months exceeds 270 million won, and there is no trace of endeavoring to recover damage. In addition, examining the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is appropriate and it is not unreasonable to determine the amount.

In addition, the Defendant, around August 2012, supplied approximately KRW 40 million to the injured party. Considering that the Defendant was unable to receive the payment, the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant supplied approximately KRW 40 million to the injured party around August 2012. Even if the Defendant supplied approximately KRW 40 million to the injured party on or around August 2012, it does not appear that the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable solely on such circumstance even if the Defendant had yet to receive the payment after having supplied approximately KRW 40 million to the injured party on or around August 2012.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.