Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Although the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by examining the adopted evidence.

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts cited in the grounds of appeal, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

① On May 14, 2013, the Defendant reversed the Defendant’s statement with the content that “(the instant building 401, 402, and at the time of the contract) received cash.” In response to the police investigation of May 14, 2013, the Defendant asked the tenants to “No money” (the administrator No. 401 and No. 402) and provided that the police informed the Defendant that he paid the down payment to the Defendant in cash, the contractor No. 401 and No. 402 stated that he provided the Defendant with “the money (or (or (or (or (or (or (or (or (f) flaf)) in cash.” The Defendant reversed the Defendant’s statement with the content of recognizing the facts charged.

[However, on May 24, 2013, the Defendant reversed the fact that “(the fact that the Defendant received money) is unsatisfying” in the police investigation conducted on May 24, 2013. ② The statements made by the victim and the sub-contractor No. 401 and 402 of the instant building correspond to the instant charges.

③ The Defendant, in addition to the embezzlement of this case, has collected separate management expenses from the occupants of the building and used them for the maintenance and management of the building, submitted by the lower court.