The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The defendant above.

A. In determining the facts, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, on the grounds that the Defendant, who forged a private document, or display a falsified private document, obtained permission from G and completed the instant contract.

(2) According to the direction of A who is responsible for the progress of the instant construction, the Defendant used each money listed in paragraphs 1 through 5, 9, 10, and 12 of the judgment below’s list of crimes for expenses related to the instant construction. The money listed in the No. 6, 7, and 8 of the same list of crimes was loaned to AE. The money listed in the No. 11 of the same list of crimes was used to repay the money borrowed from AE for the instant construction. The money listed in the No. 11 of the same list of crimes was used to pay the money borrowed from AE for the instant construction, without any embezzlement of each of the said money. A individually used each of the said money.

Even if the defendant was unaware of this, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the fact that the Defendant stated the content of the instant contract and affixed seals in G name, and G made a statement to the effect that: (a) G had known that the instant contract was prepared from the investigative agency to the lower court; and (b) there was no permission to affix his seal thereto; and (c) G’s statement does not have any reasonable circumstance to suspect its credibility, and therefore, the lower court’s judgment convicting him of this part of the facts charged by using G’s statement as evidence is acceptable, and the Defendant’s assertion of this part of this case is without merit.

(2) The lower court’s judgment on occupational embezzlement.