All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the fact that the Defendant was supplied with electric wires by the Victim J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) but failed to pay the price is due to the fact that the Victim Co., Ltd. unilaterally ceased the supply of electric wires by demanding the Defendant’s own security prior to the due date.

Therefore, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim company, and, in the absence of the above suspension of the supply of electric wires, had the intent and ability to pay the price of delivered electric wires sufficiently.

2) Even if the sentencing was found guilty against the Defendant, the lower court’s sentence (one year and six years of suspended sentence in one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.

① Around May 2017, Plaintiff I (hereinafter “I”) entered into a contract with M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) on the supply of electric wires equivalent to KRW 2,472,850,00 (Additional tax Map) in total at the construction site of the S building in Pyeongtaek-si.

② Around May 22, 2017, the Defendant, the representative director of I, who was an electric wire distributor, concluded a contract with the victim company (hereinafter “instant contract”) under which the victim company would directly supply electric wires at the said new site by presenting the first proposal of an amount equivalent to 800 million won to the victim company.

③ Under the instant contract, I was supplied with electric wires totaling KRW 405,041,763 (including value added taxes) on six occasions from June 8, 2017 to June 27, 2017 by the victim company, but did not pay the price.

In full view of the following circumstances recognized based on the above evidence and factual relations, the Defendant did not have the intent and ability to pay the price of delivered electric wires as stated in the judgment below.