The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) did not require GI to give unreasonable instructions to determine the weight of the career period of itself and H.

The above error in the calculation of the work experience period is rather caused by G's error in work process.

The court below found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In the trial of the court below, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content that the facts charged in this case are modified as stated in the following facts, and since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

The defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite such reasons for reversal of authority.

3. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the lower court examined I as a witness and observed the appearance and attitude at the time of the statement by directly reporting and observing the consistency, clarity, and accuracy of the statement at the time of the statement, and the statement in I and G’s court court on the facts charged of this case has credibility.

The decision was determined.

In light of the spirit of substantial direct trial system adopted by our criminal litigation law, the appellate court is not required to respect the first deliberation decision on the credibility of the statement, except in extenuating circumstances, and there is no circumstance to deem that the judgment of the court below that recognized the credibility of the statement of the above witness is considerably unfair when comprehensively considering the following circumstances.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, including the above statements, the Defendant calculated the excessive amount by granting weight to himself and H during the career period in violation of his occupational duties and received an annual salary in 2010 and 2011.