The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. The Defendant received KRW 132,132,00 from the victim to implement the second contract for the production of a cosmetic toilet paper (hereinafter “the second contract”), but the said money was used by the victim by agreement with the victim to use the said money for additional installation and supply costs of the contract for the manufacture of the cosmetic automatic assembly equipment (hereinafter “the first contract”). Thus, the Defendant did not acquire it by fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it cannot be said that there was an agreement between the defendant and the victim to divert the amount of the second contract to the additional installation and delivery cost. As to the facts charged, the defendant, like the facts charged, by deceiving the victim as if he were to deliver the second contract price under the second contract.

1) The victim made a consistent statement at the investigative agency to the effect that the defendant would complete the implementation of the above contract and deliver the second contract price by stating that he would also complete the production of finished products as of 8,000 hours per day pursuant to the first contract. 2) The defendant also stated at the appellate court that the amount of KRW 40 million out of the second contract price received from the victim on May 20, 2016 is not paid as additional installation and delivery cost for the first contract, but as down payment under the second contract. The defendant stated to the effect that it is not paid as the second contract price. The defendant received all the payment for the second contract for the cosmetic automatic assembly equipment (Evidence No. 69 of evidence record) prepared on May 20, 2016 (Evidence No. 69 of the record), and the defendant received all the payment for the second contract price for the cosmetic automatically assembly equipment (the first contract) from the victim on May 20, 2017.