The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant of mistake of facts borrowed KRW 436,50,000 from the victim G (excluding a prior interest that was deducted; hereinafter “the instant loan”). However, as he had the intent or ability to repay at that time, there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation related to the instant loan, and thus, there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

In addition, from October 31, 2012 to December 31, 2012, the money transferred from D (hereinafter “D”) to each bank account under the name of the defendant or J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”) on four occasions from D (hereinafter “D”) operated by the defendant to December 31, 2012 shall be lent to J or paid as advance payment for internal wood production. Accordingly, the defendant shall not be deemed to have been subject to embezzlement as he/she has no personal useful facts.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged in this case guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court under the title of “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the reasoning of the judgment, the lower court can be sufficiently recognized with regard to the instant fraud, not by remitting KRW 380 million in total to the bank account in the victim D’s name that the Defendant had been on duty for the victim D, but by arbitrarily remitting the amount of KRW 380,000 to the loan or advance payment, as stated in the judgment of the lower court, and by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court. (A) In relation to the instant fraud, the fact that the Defendant arbitrarily remitted and embezzled the amount of KRW 380,000,000 to the bank account in the victim D’s name that the Defendant had on duty for the victim D, as indicated in the judgment of the lower court. (A)