The part of the judgment of the court below concerning occupational embezzlement shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although I consistently stated that he had consistently paid the instant money to the Defendant as the apartment development fund, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges on the ground that the alteration of the private document and the uttering of the altered private document are not a matter stated additionally in the council of occupants' representatives, but K et al. signed the above minutes without being accurately notified.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts: (a) I, as I, concluded a negotiated contract for the instant remodeling elevator construction contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”) and received the down payment as 60% of the total construction amount, the possibility that I would have paid the instant money to the Defendant to the Defendant under the apartment name could not be ruled out because I, on October 8, 2009, transferred the instant money to the apartment development fund under the apartment name to the Defendant in cash; (b) H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) accounts the instant money as the payment by the representative director rather than the name of the apartment development fund; and (d) in full view of the fact that I received the instant money as a negotiated contract with the Defendant and the instant remodeling elevator construction contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”) and the down payment was determined differently from the ordinary contract, the Prosecutor’s allegation in this part of the facts charged is insufficient to acknowledge otherwise.

B. We examine the judgment on the alteration of private documents and the uttering of altered private documents, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.