Of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, the guilty portion and the not guilty portion, 12, 17, 37, 61.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) since September 2014, 2014, the Defendant was employed as an employee of the victim C; (b) did not embezzled the price of goods sold in or around August 2014; (c) there was no evidence to deem that the said victim’s musical instrument was voluntarily taken out and sold; (d) even if the Defendant had sold and embezzled the said victim’s musical instrument, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant purchased the musical instrument from a separate customer with the said money and embezzled the proceeds from the sale thereof. Meanwhile, the Defendant promised to receive incentives from the said victim. Meanwhile, the Defendant promised to receive incentives from the said victim; (d) the Defendant paid the remainder after deducting the money equivalent to the said incentive amount from the said amount due to the said victim’s failure to pay it, and thus, the amount equivalent to the above incentive amount cannot be deemed to have been embezzled by the said victim: each of the lower courts’ punishment (Article 1: Imprisonment with prison labor, October 2, 2010 and imprisonment with prison labor, etc.).

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts, the part on the issuance of false tax invoices in the annexed list 12, 17, 37, 61, 63, 65, 66, and 67 of the judgment of the court below in the second instance is also found to have been issued falsely even though there is no supply of goods or services. 2) The sentence of the court below in the second instance of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant for the judgment of ex officio, each of which was pronounced, and the defendant filed an appeal against the above two appeals. The court of first and second instances decided to hold concurrent hearings. Since each of the offenses against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court of first and second instances cannot be maintained.