The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When the Defendant, on October 2010, established a mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with the complainant, etc. and established a FF stock company to operate the additives business, the Defendant was in a state of endeavoring to complete the technology of liquefied fuel additives by exchanging with G, J, L, and K, and the Defendant was in a state of endeavoring to complete the technology of liquefied fuel additives. The Defendant was aware that the technology of liquefied fuel additives has not been completed due to the experience in implementing the projects of liquefied fuel additives.

On September 3, 2010, at the time of the Sindo Council in China, the low temperature was weak and failed, and the Defendant was informed to the complainant, and on November 3, 2010, the Defendant was also reported to be in the test by manufacturing additives for wintering. Therefore, there was no fact that the level of technology belongs to the test.

In addition, the defendant did not have a technology independently from the complainant, and knew that the defendant constituted an additives team and a machine team.

In order to supplement and complete technology with the money received from the complainants, the Defendant paid to G, J, K, etc. and was not used individually, and the KRW 50 million transferred on November 18, 2010, which was paid on the rent, facility cost, and maintenance cost after the rent for the factory was determined, and the Defendant used the product test cost, equipment, and technical team personnel cost, not for the intended purpose.

The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. When the ex officio judgment prosecutor made an application for changes in the indictment of this case as stated in the facts charged below, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more, since the case was changed by this court's permission.

However, the defendant's mistake of facts.