The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the facts charged in this case of violation of Acts and subordinate statutes constitute a crime committed by a foreigner outside the territory of the Republic of Korea other than those provided in Article 5 of the Criminal Act, when a crime was committed against the Republic of Korea or a national of the Republic of Korea pursuant to Article 6 of the Criminal Act, the criminal

However, since the victim of this case is "Linaina Limited Corporation" as a Chinese corporation, the defendant's act of this case cannot be deemed as a violation of the legal interests and interests of the citizens of the Republic of Korea, and thus, public prosecution should be dismissed. However, the court below found the above facts charged guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The L (Bodi) Limited Corporation, a Chinese corporation, which was operated by mistake C, lost credit in transactions in China because it did not supply proper goods, and was unable to additionally introduce a customer who supplied goods in a situation where the problem was not resolved, and even though the Defendant was unaware of C or caused a mistake to dispose of property, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was guilty.

2. Determination

A. The following facts charged are examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio judgment, and the prosecutor raised the case at the trial.

C. 1) An application for permission to amend amendments to the indictment was filed in the same manner as the facts constituting the crime of the crime, and since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below was no longer able to maintain it in this respect. However, even though the above reasons for ex officio destruction exist, the defendant's violation of Acts and subordinate statutes and the assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court of this court, and the following is examined. (B) The judgment of the court below and the