The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. In consideration of the following circumstances, there was no intention of deception and deception.

1. SK C& .C demand, etc., the victim D's position (hereinafter referred to as "D'), regardless of the will of the defendant, shall be called "D's position").

and Emergency Broadcasting Equipment Supply Contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”).

AB concluded the agreement.

② At the time of the instant contract and delivery, the Defendant: (a) from NENE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “NENE”); (b)

The victim was willing to pay the price for supply with the payment of the construction cost.

Defendant was holding real estate, and H (hereinafter “H”) was operated by Defendant.

In addition, there was an ability to repay because it had several claims.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. After filing an appeal, the ex officio determination prosecutor conducted one of the facts charged from “the Defendant” to “the Defendant made a false statement.

“The Defendant was proceeding in H operated by the Defendant around October 2012 to December 12, 2012.

E With respect to emergency broadcasting equipment necessary for the E-site broadcasting facility construction, the victim D, who is an employee of the victim D, received a quotation and a camera, adjusted the amount of the estimate with D, or approved D to issue tax invoices, etc., and the owner of the E-site broadcasting facility installed with the digital wave, such as ample-, ample-, ample-, 4, and other emergency broadcasting equipment, and the owner of the E-site broadcasting facility to pay the price for the supply as the construction cost received.

“A request for change of indictment was made, and this Court has permitted it.

The judgment of the court below shall not be maintained as the subject of adjudication changes.

However, the argument of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact, the lower court appears to have made a clerical error in the phrase “from March 2013 to May 2013” between March 2013 and May 2013.

x...