The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, ① The F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) had the ability and intent to engage in each of the instant transactions with the victimized Co., Ltd. at the time of each of the instant transactions, but it was only impossible for the victimized Co., Ltd. to pay for the agreed goods due to the aggravation of financial conditions due to the aggravation of various external factors that were not originally anticipated after the delivery of the victimized Co., Ltd...

shall not be deemed to exist.

② Since the Defendant was not involved in the trade of the victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim G”) and the Defendant Company, there was no fact that the Defendant conspired with E to induce the representative H of the victimized Company G.

③ The part of the transaction with the damaged company G is merely a broker for the transaction between G and the Chinese production company. In particular, the part of the crime of defraudation with the producer equivalent to KRW 331,504,866 among them is not a dispositive act of the victimized company G.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined that the Defendant may fully recognize that the Defendant had had the intent to obtain deception and deception at least at the time of the transaction with the victimized Company, and that the Defendant may sufficiently recognize that the Defendant was in a de facto partnership with E or with the power to represent the business from E, and that the Defendant was in a position of E and the accomplice.

The decision was determined.

① From around 2014, Defendant Company had been faced with poor financial conditions, such as delayed payment of wages to certain employees due to insufficient operating funds.