The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged despite the fact-misunderstanding and legal doctrine that the Defendant was a contractor who was awarded a blanket contract for the instant temple construction work from the victim D, and thus, did not have a custodian for the instant construction work. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) Although H arbitrarily affixed a seal imprint under the name of the Defendant, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The punishment of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to occupational embezzlement and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the court below's judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

① The victim D is difficult for the defendant to receive money from his/her own daily in an investigative agency and the court below, and the head of passbook and seal deposited with compensation money will be used as construction cost by checking the head of passbook and seal.

(1) The Defendant, who received the passbook and seal from the Defendant, deposited KRW 300,000 to his own agricultural bank account, and used it for personal use.

was stated.

② The Defendant also deposited the victim D with his agricultural head of the Tong and used the construction cost as the construction cost in order to be difficult for the Defendant to receive the daily construction cost from the prosecution.

In other words, the victim received KRW 300 million from the victim D

The defendant himself, unlike the victim D, stated that the construction cost was deposited (the evidence record 542 pages, but the defendant himself, unlike the victim D.