The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding, the violation of the rules of evidence), the Defendant sufficiently explained to D about interim accounts of retirement allowances, agreed to interim accounts of retirement allowances, and accordingly, paid retirement allowances to D along with the monthly payment.

D voluntarily made a statement that he did not read the above contents and did not explain it to the defendant even though he signed the interim settlement of accounts and the interim settlement of accounts of retirement allowances. D's statement has no credibility.

Nevertheless, since the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground of D's statement, it erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence.

2. The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the application for interim settlement of retirement pay could not be deemed valid based on D’s individual and free will, based on the circumstances set forth in its reasoning.

In light of the circumstances indicated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and there was an error of misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence as to the credibility of the statement, as alleged by the Defendant, in fact, D’s signing on the interim retirement pay application and the interim retirement pay confirmation note as of October 8, 2015. However, D’s signing on the interim retirement pay is seven months or more after entry as of October 8, 2015, and it appears to be consistent with D’s statement to the effect that D’s signature was signed without hearing a proper explanation, upon receiving a request from the Defendant to the effect that D’s signature was affixed, due to taxes imposed by the Defendant himself during his work.