On December 23, 2010, among the guilty portion and the acquitted portion of the lower judgment, the account statement is not issued.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant agreed to use the farmland preservation charges refunded between the victim and the victim’s son for the expenses related to the Convention Construction Work and the construction cost for four construction contracts, etc., planned by K. On April 6, 2013, there was no intention of embezzlement, such as deposit of the farmland preservation charges remaining after being used as the construction cost for the victim, and deposit of the farmland preservation charges of KRW 61,94,120.

(B) After the Defendant received 1/2 shares out of the Gyeonggi-si I land owned by the victim, and completed the said land, sold the house and the land, and agreed to set up a second priority mortgage on the said land to secure the payment of shares out of the sale price by paying 95 million won. However, since the Housing Corporation was not completed and the land was not sold, the Defendant did not pay shares to the victim because the due date for the obligation to pay shares did not arrive. Thus, the Defendant did not have intention to commit fraud.

(C) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) mismisunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine requires a large amount of expenses to proceed with D, and the Defendant requested D to transfer the construction cost in advance. Accordingly, D paid the construction cost in advance to the Defendant regardless of the expiration of the term, so the starting point of the statute of limitations for this part of the instant charges ought to be the date on which the actual service is rendered. However, the lower court’s account statement from May 31, 2010 to December 15, 2010 among the instant charges.