As to the crime of Article 1 of the judgment of the defendant, the crime of Article 2 of the judgment shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the crime of embezzlement against the victim D is merely a disposal of the money obtained after the fraudulent act is completed, and thus, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of embezzlement of this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though it is merely an ex post facto act, by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant on the grounds of unfair sentencing (for each of the crimes of subparagraphs 1 and 2 on the market: 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before examining the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination, the health care unit, and the public prosecutor’s prior to the trial, while maintaining this part of the facts charged as to the embezzlement of the victim D among the facts charged in the instant case as the primary facts charged, and adding “the crime of breach of trust” and “Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act” to the name of the conjunctive crime, and the following facts charged:

1. (e);

As stated in paragraph (1), an application for amendment to a bill of amendment was filed, and since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the primary and conjunctive facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court. The following is to examine whether the crime of embezzlement against the victim D, which is the primary facts charged, is established, and whether the crime of breach of trust, which is the primary facts charged

B. The embezzlement of the victim D as to the primary facts charged.