The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (the guilty part of the judgment of the lower court) Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant”) operated by himself is called the instant company.

(2) As the operation of the victim D and the company of this case is difficult, the defendant merely invested KRW 50 million as a partnership business, and there was no promise to additionally invest KRW 50 million. The defendant used the above investment money received from the victim for the company of this case, and thus there was no intention to acquire by fraud. The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one month imprisonment) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below) in accordance with the consulting contract entered into with theO, the Defendant acquired the down payment by concluding a consulting contract with the victim L with the knowledge that the part of the logistics support work for the CPF vessel that was ordered and constructed N cannot be ordered to theO operated by the victim L. The court below determined that it is difficult to recognize the intent to acquire the Defendant by fraud, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence (eight months of imprisonment) which

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendant had no intent and ability to contribute to the instant company KRW 50 million, and was intended to use KRW 50 million received from the victim for other than the purpose of the promise with the victim. Therefore, the Defendant’s intent to defraud the victim may be recognized.

The judgment of the court below that made the above conclusion is.