The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Imprisonment with prison labor for a crime No. 1, which is set forth in the judgment of the defendant, and a crime No. 2, which is set forth in the judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (the second crime in the form of judgment) The defendant is guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts, even though it cannot be deemed that the victims did not pay the cost of excavated equipment to the victims unilaterally from the wind that has been unilaterally removed at the construction site during the course of the construction work for the development of electric power villages, and that there is a criminal intent to acquire the cost by fraud.

B. When taking into account various circumstances on the accused of unfair sentencing, the sentence of the lower court (an offence 1: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months, and a crime 2: imprisonment with prison labor for two months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: ① The victim M was the employee of the victim K in the Dispute Resolution Committee from October 21, 201 to November 17, 2011, and the Defendant’s employees from November 9, 201 to November 17, 201 (hereinafter “the construction site of this case”) used excavation equipment to the Defendant’s site for the development of electric village (hereinafter “the construction site of this case”); the construction site cost was to be borne separately by the Defendant in addition to the equipment cost at the time; ② the Defendant purchased the construction site of this case with money borrowed from the victims and the victims; ② the Defendant purchased the site of this case with no specific property as credit bad; ② the Defendant did not have any revenue from the construction site of this case on account of the lack of any revenue from the construction site on November 21, 2011; ③ the Defendant did not pay the oil price to the victims.