The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The lower court found the credibility of the testimony by G, the representative of E Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project Association F, the president of E (hereinafter “instant association”) and the public relations personnel of the said Association (hereinafter “OS”).

Based on its judgment and determination, the Defendant was convicted as evidence. However, as seen below, the F made a statement that is inconsistent with its actual statement because it is likely that the status of the president of the association might be threatened, and G made a statement that is not consistent with the rule of experience because F would be likely to be damaged by the instant case. As such, the witness F and G’s statements are not credibility.

A) The witness F did not hear that there was no receipt for personnel expenses from the Defendant in the lower court’s court’s court.

However, this is clearly contradictory to the statements made by F in the prosecution investigation process.

B) The witness F testified to the effect that G was expected to create a receipt by finding the OS staff employed by the Defendant because G was well aware of G’s urban and residential environment secret law (hereinafter “City’s Non-Act”) and OS business with respect to the reasons why G was viewed to meet G in the lower court’s trial.

However, F, however, takes into account the fact that the defendant was aware of the employment of OS staff as needed from time to time, the above statement does not have any gain formally.

C) A receipt submitted by the Defendant to the instant association was not a receipt for a number of OS employees frequently employed, but a receipt for three OS employees.

The defendant was aware that he had employed OS personnel from time to time to pay expenses.

F was unaware of the fact that the receipt submitted to the instant association was false.

A statement is against the rule of experience.

D) The witness G did not state that the lower court’s court stated that the Defendant “F only called F G” in the court, and there was no statement.