The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The J borrowed the name from the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victimd Company”) and was awarded a subcontract for “a painting construction work during the construction of an apartment building in Ansan-dong, Dong-si” (hereinafter “instant painting construction work”).

Since the Defendant re-subcontracted from J and carried out the instant painting construction, the instant painting construction site is not the damaged company but the Defendant’s construction site.

Nevertheless, the court below denied the lending relationship between J and the victimized company and judged that the victimized company is a substantial sewage level. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

B) The instant painting construction site is the Defendant’s construction site, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute fraud, theft, or occupational embezzlement in the following respect:

The defendant is able to receive all the construction cost in addition to the agreed amount of loan fee in the name of the damaged company.

Therefore, in the process of claiming labor costs, false demands were made.

This does not constitute fraud.

Construction materials, such as paint, have been supplied in the name of the injured company under the name of the recipient of the goods to be supplied by the original Defendant. As such, the Defendant brought it to the effect that the goods were supplied.

Even if it does not constitute theft, it does not constitute theft.

In the case of container lease deposit, the damaged company paid it to the lessor, and then deducted the damage company from the amount of the re-subcontract payment to the defendant.

Therefore, since the above lease deposit is the same as the payment by the defendant, the defendant received and used the lease deposit.

Even if it does not constitute occupational embezzlement, it does not constitute occupational embezzlement.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too heavy.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too minor.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts