A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant merely claimed construction cost to the victim company under an agreement with the victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”), and the Defendant deceptioned the victim company or paid the construction cost due to the error by the victim company.

Although it cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges, on the following grounds, on the ground that: (a) the Defendant merely received construction cost within the scope agreed upon by sub-subcontracting the construction work from C; and (b) the Defendant was registered as an employee of the victim company; (c) the Defendant was seeking to accept tax-related documents; and (d) the Defendant did not implicitly consent to the victim company; (c) the Defendant did not deceiving the victim company, but did not act by mistake; and (d) the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion that the Defendant did not act by mistake.

A) The following facts are true that the defendant is led to confession or is recognized by objective evidence.

(1) On October 2013, the Victim Company (F) subcontracted the Victim Company (E school’s representative director) with earth and steel reinforced concrete works among the reconstruction works, and the “top and structure works among the reconstruction works in the G School” around November 2013. The Defendant received only the amount equivalent to 93% of the original subcontract price from the Victim Company, and then re-subcontracted each of the above works (hereinafter “each of the instant works”).

(2) Notwithstanding such re-subcontract agreement, the victim company shall be the injured party.