The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) In fact, the Defendant did not instruct K to install a heavy traffic signal control device instead of a new traffic signal control device in connection with the instant construction project.

2) misunderstanding the legal principles, even if the Defendant ordered K to install a high-speed traffic signal control device, if the crime of embezzlement is established, the Defendant should have the intention to obtain unlawful acquisition of the high-speed and high-speed traffic signal control device itself, and the incidental economic benefits from such installation cannot be the object of the crime of embezzlement, which is a property crime.

However, even if the Defendant had K install a heavy traffic signal control device in the H city owned by K while in custody in the traffic information center, it is merely a moving place only, and it does not lose ownership or possession of H market. Therefore, the Defendant embezzled a heavy traffic signal control device with intent to acquire unlawful acquisition.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not know that a new traffic signal control device is installed at a place where a new traffic signal control device should be installed in connection with the instant construction project, and the Defendant could not be aware even if it did not do so.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months, one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (for Defendant A, 2 years of suspended sentence in June, and for Defendant B, 1 year of suspended sentence in April) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant A

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor ex officio examined the facts charged, while maintaining the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged, and adding Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act to the name of the preliminary crime, which is applied in the application of the law, respectively, and applied for changes in the indictment with regard to the facts charged. This Court also stated the following.