The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles do not have any conspiracy to commit the crime with the Defendant B, and the Defendant, as an employee, performed business in accordance with the direction of the Defendant B, who is the business owner. Therefore, the Defendant is not allowed to commit the crime of deception and deception.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment for each of the defendants) is too unfased and unreasonable.

2. Examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the prosecutor, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the purport that “the prosecutor acquired property benefits equivalent to the same amount” in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below to “the same amount of money” was obtained through deception of property equivalent to KRW 74 million. The judgment of the court below changed the subject of the judgment against the Defendants by granting permission. This part of the judgment of the court below was sentenced to a single sentence against each of the Defendants on the ground that there is a concurrent relation with the remaining part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, Defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A

A. Whether the crime of fraud is established through deception in the transaction of goods shall be determined by whether there was an intentional intent to defraud the goods from the victim by making a false statement as if the victim were to repay the price of goods, although there was no intent or ability to repay the price of goods to the defendant as of the time of the transaction.

In addition, if a person who is supplied with goods in a goods transaction has provided the other party with a true notice about the method of preparing the price of goods.