The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is that the Defendant only introduced the events upon the request of the J, which was in fact a separate accounting system, and there was no public contest for the head of the partnership D, the representative of the executive company E and the violation of trust.

There is no benefit from the instant case.

Nevertheless, the lower court, which found the Defendant guilty on the sole basis of the statements of H, J, etc., was erroneous in matters of mistake of facts.

2. The defendant who lawfully adopted and examined the evidence at the trial of the evidence, and consented to the interrogation protocol of the defendant prepared by the judicial police officer and the protocol copy of the interrogation protocol of the judicial police officer prepared by the judicial police officer. However, although the declaration of consent to the evidence under Article 318 of the Criminal Procedure Act may be cancelled or withdrawn before the examination of evidence is completed, the consent of the court of first instance cannot be cancelled at the court of second instance since the cancellation or withdrawal is not recognized after the examination of evidence is completed. On the other hand, even after the cancellation or withdrawal of the declaration of consent to the evidence after the examination of evidence is completed, the admissibility of evidence already acquired before the cancellation or withdrawal is not lost (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do428, Apr. 28, 2005). According to the records, the interrogation protocol of the defendant prepared by the judicial police officer and the protocol copy of the interrogation protocol of the judicial police officer prepared by the court of first instance as evidence at the trial date after the completion of the examination of evidence.

Therefore, the admissibility of evidence already assigned to the above evidence shall not be lost.

In addition, according to the following circumstances, the defendant's representative D and executive officers of the C Cooperatives, according to the comprehensive arguments of the political party.