The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. In addition, the existence of the film joint production contract, which made the victim's original novel prior to the conclusion of the instant drone joint production contract with the original novel by the Defendant of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, was implicitly notified in a manner such as the provision of film scenarios. The existence of the film joint production contract is not an obstacle to the implementation of the drama joint production contract with the victim, and thus, it is not subject to notification.

In addition, the reason why the defendant was unable to perform the contract with the victim is that the victim threatened the defendant to file a complaint if the victim did not transfer his/her copyright on October 2012, 2012, not because the defendant had no intention or ability to perform the contract.

Therefore, the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, although the defendant did not have the intention of deception or deception of the victim.

B. The two-year imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the following facts are as follows: ① at the prosecutor’s office and the court below, the defendant and I knew that K entered into a contract to jointly produce the motion picture by writing the novel “G”, and if known, it is difficult to broadcast the film produced by the motion picture at the broadcasting station; ② the defendant stated that he did not enter into a contract to jointly produce the motion picture at the broadcasting station; ② the defendant stated that he did not make a statement to K as to the fact that he entered into a contract to jointly produce the motion picture (Evidence No. 702 of the evidence record, ③O, and N, who are engaged in the work of producing the motion picture, have special interests with the victim and the defendant.