The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the person employed by the injured party D (representative) Co., Ltd. (E) and engaged in human resources management at the construction site for Heung Construction site Development.

When the defendant did not receive the expenses he did not receive from the damaged company, he would like to prepare a false printing report to the workers who did not actually work with F, the head of the above site site, and submit it to the damaged company, and to obtain the cost of the prior input by means of receiving personnel expenses.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with F, prepared a false output report from November 1, 2012 to November 30 of the same year as if he/she actually worked in G, H, I, and J, and submitted it to deceiving the person in charge of the victimized company by deceiving the person in charge of the victimized company. On December 26, 2012, the Defendant received from the victimized company the total amount of KRW 2,414,390 from the G account under the name of G, KRW 2,967,210, and KRW 2,414,390 from the H account under the name of H, and KRW 1,518,50 from the I account under the name of J, KRW 1,794,650, and KRW 8,694,800 from the account under the name of J.

2. In full view of the statements made by the witness K and F in this court, evidence 2 (lease Agreement), evidence 3-1, 2-1, 4-4, evidence 5-1, 5-1 through 12 (each receipt), and evidence 7-1, 7-3 (each receipt) submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant was in charge of human resources management, etc. at the construction site of the damaged company. On October 5, 2012, the Defendant was in charge of human resources management, etc. at the construction site of the damaged company. On the other hand, around October 5, 2012, the Defendant supplied the Defendant’s materials to the lessor at the construction site of this case, but the Defendant did not receive the material price of 4,490,000 won from the damaged company, and the Defendant did not request the head of the FK and the employees at the site of the damaged company and the employees at the site, but did not request the payment of the material price.