The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (guilty part) and the misunderstanding of the legal principles are used for all the funds used by the Defendant as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the lower judgment. As such, occupational embezzlement or breach of trust is not established.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of six months (two years of suspended execution) and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the testimony and evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the court below as to the non-indicted 1 of the crime, the defendant can fully recognize the fact that he acquired money from the victims as stated in this part of the facts charged.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. On the other hand, the prosecutor of the guilty portion of the facts charged by the court below applied for the amendment of the indictment to delete the sequence 4 of the crimes committed in the annexed Form No. 1 of the court below among the facts charged by the court below. This court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment

B. As the lower court deemed this part and the remaining conviction as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and sentenced a single punishment, the entire conviction part of the lower judgment cannot be maintained.

B. The prosecutor of the non-guilty part of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below that found the not guilty among the facts charged in the judgment of the court below was requested to amend the indictment as stated in the above 4. A. The court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment.

Therefore, the portion of innocence among the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.

(c)

However, the argument that the defendant and the prosecutor's mistake of the facts is still included in the subject of the party deliberation, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the guilty portion

A. The appellate court’s judgment on the exclusion of the portion deleted due to the amendment of the indictment by the lower court may have an impact on the formation of documentary evidence during the trial process.