The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of receiving a remittance of KRW 30 million from the victim, was supplied with uniforms from H and supplied them to the victim, and the Defendant was unable to comply with the initial promise on the wind that H refuses to supply uniforms to the victim.

The Defendant, following the agreement with the victim, provided sports clothes equivalent to KRW 17 million instead of two uniforms, and invested KRW 10 million out of the remainder 13 million in a business entity run by H at the victim’s request. The Defendant returned KRW 3 million to the victim.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not intend to acquire the money.

B. The first instance sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant, even though there was no intent or ability to supply uniforms to the victim as stated in the judgment of the first instance, acquired 30 million won as the price of the uniforms and acquired 30 million won as the price of the uniforms by deceiving the victim may be fully recognized.

① On December 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) on December 10, 2012, the Defendant is obliged to deposit the two uniforms with a uniform; and (b) was urged to deposit the two uniforms, and received a remittance of KRW 30 million.

The Defendant remitted 10 million won to H on the same day, and consumed the remainder of 20 million won for personal purposes, such as office operation expenses.

Even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant was scheduled to be supplied with uniforms from H until December 12, 2012, and the Defendant already consumed KRW 16 million out of the above KRW 20 million for personal use until December 12, 2012.

② H does not hear and supply the Defendant’s speech that the investigative agency would offer money to the Defendant, but later did not enter money from the Defendant.