Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the charges of this case on the ground that the contents of the above complaint are false is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are acknowledged.

① On September 9, 2008, the Defendant, as a general manager of L, issued a cashier’s check of KRW 6,624,000, which was received as part of the compensation received when M 192m2 is expropriated as a road site from L’s general manager C in the above sentence, and opened a regular deposit account to D employees of the YUFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.

② After that, there was a dispute over the whereabouts of a cashier’s check from C on the wind to deny the fact that the Defendant received the above cashier’s check, and as a result, the Defendant was found to open a regular deposit account in the new port of port and deposited the cashier’s check.

③ On February 12, 2009, the Defendant responded to the fact that the Defendant embezzled the above cashier’s check by depositing it into the Defendant’s personal account, that he received one of the above cashier’s check from C, and that he did not have any mind that the Defendant was distort until he was issued the above cashier’s check.

④ The Defendant did not receive the above cashier’s checks from C, and C embezzled the above cashier’s checks, and D embezzled the above cashier’s checks as the Defendant deposits.