1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.

3. Appeal.

1. The cited judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the conclusion among the reasons to be stated in this case, is identical to the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (attached Form 1 and 2), and thus, excluding the reasoning to be stated in this case, shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2.Nos. 2, 16, and 3, 14, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, and 3, 2,

A person shall be appointed.

C. On March 27, 2018, the Defendant was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution on March 27, 2018.

On November 30, 2018, the plaintiff appealed to the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office, and the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office issued an order of re-investigation to the Busan High Prosecutor's Office, and on March 29, 2019, the Incheon High Prosecutor's Office issued a non-prosecution disposition against the defendant on the non-prosecution disposition.

The reason for non-prosecution of the part related to the instant case (Evidence B No. 15 and 56) requires excessive budget for replacement expenses such as 3,4560,00 won due to the driver's insurance of 32 employees in the management office (Evidence B) - 3,4560,00 won due to the 32 driver's insurance. However, it is difficult to recognize the intent of embezzlement because it is acceptable to accept the suspect's assertion that the purchase and work would have been covered in preparation for accidents during

- The fact that the actual suspect appears to have performed the PED construction directly through the employees of the management office, that only the materials were supplied and only the materials are expected to have been supplied to have been made a considerable budget reduction. The above expenditure is “budget expenditure for the promotion of welfare welfare of the employees” and is not listed as the resolution of the management body as stipulated in Article 31(1) of the management rules, and that K of the insurance company’s employees stated that there was no payment of rebates by the conclusion of the insurance contract to the suspect, and the separate profits from the conclusion of the insurance contract even in the suspect account.