The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant: (a) released money deposited in his account and delivered it to the person under whose name the money was deposited; (b) however, it thought that the deposited money was the money owned by the person under whose name the money was transferred, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent to commit embezzlement against D of the victim of the singishing fraud; and (c) there was no intent to obtain the said money independently and independently.

Nevertheless, the lower court recognized the Defendant as embezzlement and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

The prosecutor, while maintaining the facts charged as to the embezzlement, which the court below found guilty in the trial at the court of first instance as the primary facts charged, has "Fraud" in the name of the offense, "Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the applicable provisions of law, and "Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act" in addition to the facts charged, has been added to the subject of the judgment by this court upon permission. As examined below, this court acquitted the Defendant of embezzlement, which is the primary facts charged, and convicted the Defendant of fraud, which is the ancillary facts charged, so the judgment of the court below

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts about the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there is such ground for ex officio reversal.

3. Judgment of misconception of facts as to the primary facts charged by the defendant

A. On August 2018, the Defendant heard the phrase “a loan may be made up to KRW 30 million by phone call from an unqualified person who had contacted with him by means of loan advertisement at a lower-class place.” The Defendant’s primary charge refers to a person who has failed to obtain the above name, who is named as “a loan may be made up of KRW 30,000,000,000.”