Of those, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months.

Defendant .

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

A. The Defendant did not commit the crime of occupational embezzlement in collusion with B by withdrawing funds from the victim N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) under the pretext of false labor cost, etc., by transferring funds from N’s new bank account to B’s national bank account, or voluntarily consuming funds from N’s new bank account by withdrawing funds in cash from the N’s new bank account to the non-use.

B. The Defendant did not commit the crime of occupational embezzlement in collusion with C by withdrawing N on the pretext of the amount of ready-mixed, deposit money for accommodation, false labor expenses, etc. and voluntarily consuming N on the part of a non-use.

(c)

The crime of occupational embezzlement related to X Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “X”) remitted the construction cost of KRW 5,500,000 to NX. However, there was a difference between the total amount of tax invoice and the amount actually paid because the tax invoice was not issued due to mistake, and KRW 5,00,000 which the Defendant received from X’s representative director Y is an individual loan unrelated to N.

(d)

The part concerning the crime of occupational embezzlement using the AA account is only misunderstanding that the defendant did not consider the money deposited into the N account in cash or check under the name of A, and if the defendant incorporates the above money, there is no N funds arbitrarily consumed by the defendant.

E. In relation to the crime of occupational breach of trust, the Defendant issued a promissory note exceeding the material cost to a transaction entity, such as AC, and issued a promissory note or remitted money, although there is no material cost to be paid.

F. With respect to the crime of taking property in breach of trust, KRW 3 million received from the representative director AD (hereinafter “AD”) from the representative director AD’s company (hereinafter “AD”) for the crime of taking property in breach of trust is not the money received in return for illegal solicitation in relation to N’s work, but the expenses that enable AD to supply waterproof materials to AD to Posc construction by taking advantage of Defendant’s pro rata’s pro rata.

(ii).