The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles was an employee in charge of ordering the victim company, and G and H were a collaborative company that had been constructed by being awarded a contract by the victim company. The I falsely reported the cost of construction and made G and H receive payments in excess of the normal cost of construction. G and H have assisted the victim company’s embezzlement of funds by returning the excess payments to I.

Since then, when the defendant accused the defendant I as such embezzlement, etc., the investigation of this case was initiated while I accused the defendant, and the defendant made a false statement that he embezzled the funds of the victim company in order to conceal the illegal act committed with the I and obtain favorable status in civil litigation against the victim company in order to reduce his embezzlement amount.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the charge of the defendant by recognizing the credibility of the statement of I, G, H, etc. although the defendant did not have embezzled, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion

B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence presented by the lower court.

(A) As to the other part of which I accused as embezzlement, H has made a statement favorable to the Defendant, such as having given I an individual with respect to the other part that I accused as the Defendant.

(B) Each amount set forth in [Attachment 1, 2, and 3] Nos. 4, 7, 8, and 10 in the name of J was deposited in the K account respectively.

However, there is no material about the relationship between I and the above J and K, while I do not have any material.