The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant received the steel of this case from E for payment in kind, and therefore, the Defendant did not have an obligation to pay the steel price to the victim J, and even if the Defendant had an obligation to pay the steel price through E even if he had an obligation to pay it, so it cannot be said that the Defendant had an intent to acquire it, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant: (i)D in Yong-Namnam Cancer; (ii) E is a steel wholesale retail company from Chungcheongnam-gun budgetF; and (iii) H is a person operating J (ju), each of which is a steel distribution company from 101 to 101 of the 101 of the 1stma population I of Yong-si; and (iv) K is a person in charge of operations in J (ju).

(N)In order for the Defendant to supply steel products to Young-gun L (U.S.), around the first half of December 2010, the Defendant requested K and H through E to supply steel products, and H to the Defendant through K and E on December 15, 2010, around December 15, 2010.

Accordingly, on December 17, 2010, J supplied the first product among the steel products ordered by L(S) which is the supplier of L(S)D. On the same day, the Defendant stated that K would pay the goods directly to J(S) when the supply of steel products is completed.

However, in fact, even if the Defendant was supplied with steel products by J, he did not intend to pay for the goods directly to J. However, the Defendant was thought to transfer the above goods payment obligation to E by borrowing a loan claim amounting to approximately KRW 600 million from the intermediate intermediary transaction to E.

As above, the Defendant deceiving K and H and caused the victim J to this effect on December 17, 2010.