The appeal is dismissed.

A. In light of the fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the part of the occupational embezzlement through a tank daily misstatement, the Defendant made a false statement in part of the tank daily sales volume, tank residues, and sales volume. However, this was aimed at correcting the residual oil remaining in the tank glass and the residual oil volume on the day of sale due to oil being paid to the Defendant, etc. In light of the fact that the delivery articles sold via W were partly left through the customer’s permission while delivering the tank daily sales volume to W, the Defendant could not be deemed to have embezzled the victims’ possession of the tank through the business embezzlement on the part of the business embezzlement by falsely stating some of the tank daily sales volume on the part of the tank daily sales volume, and the Defendant did not know of the storage and delivery volume of the container from around 201 to 2500.25.25)

On the other hand, the amount of embezzlement in the attached Table No. 35, 42, 52, 68, and 86 cannot be deemed to have been calculated accurately in light of the fact that the relevant temporary light storage tank delivery quantity and the main organic delivery quantity are unclear.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s portion of occupational embezzlement by falsely entering one tank daily sales daily in a judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.