The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding Defendant borrowed money from the victim D as living expenses regardless of rice export. At the time of borrowing money, the Defendant borrowed money from the victim D as a means of living expenses regardless of rice export. At the time of borrowing money, the Defendant was not insolvent because the Defendant had a claim of KRW 16.5 million against M.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty amounting to KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the appellate court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, the Defendant’s deception of the victim and the 6.690,00 won is recognized, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is rejected.

1) Unless there are exceptional cases where maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is deemed to be remarkably unfair, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006, etc.). 2) The victim D may export rice from the investigative agency to the China by introducing N around May 2014, consistently from the investigation agency to the lower court’s trial.

On the other hand, from June 22, 2015 to June 11, 2015, the part of KRW 50,000,000,000,000 was revoked at the fourth public trial of the lower court, and the public prosecution was dismissed on the date of the fourth public trial of the lower court.

corporation. The payment was made

The Defendant made a statement (the trial records No. 228, 229, No. 7, 8 of the evidence records). The Defendant prepared a rice trading contract with the victim on June 14, 2015 and July 10, 2015 and September 29, 2015 (Evidence No. 27 of the evidence record).