2. Of the instant criminal facts, the part No. 3 of the daily table of the attached crime in the judgment of this case is specified in the Defendant’s embezzled contents based on the written confirmation of facts written by the O operator, and comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, H’s statement in the court below’s judgment is credibility, and the Defendant has embezzled KRW 12 million as in the attached list No. 3 of the crime sight table, and the judgment of the court below convicts the Defendant of this facts on the ground that there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged by the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① From around 2013 at the court below’s court, H traded parts with the victim company from around 2013, and only once remitted the amount of heat treatment to the passbook that is the corporate head of the victim company, but the Defendant offered a discount on the amount in cash, and did not keep records in the account book while doing so only in cash.

The statement was made on October 12, 2016, the victim company's representative director G was first written in the official space of the document where G had a contact with the victim company's representative director, and G was written in the official space of the document where G had a H on the date and amount. However, the defendant stated that "the defendant did not collect approximately KRW 12 million in cash over about 40 times from July 2013 to August 2016" was about 40 times as calculated on a yearly basis, and that the amount was about about 40 times, and that the amount was about about 12 million won.

(2) When theO bears the obligation against the victim company, the defendant is expected to grant a reduction of or exemption from the obligation to H on the part of the victim company.

(b).