The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) received the money indicated in the facts charged under the name of the contract amount, and did not keep the said money for the victim company; and (b) even if the said money was not paid to the father’s wages, the crime of embezzlement against the victim company is not established.

Even if the above act constitutes embezzlement, the part of the above amount actually used as wages should be excluded from the amount of embezzlement.

However, the lower court convicted the Defendant as to the whole of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (five months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. We examine the establishment of embezzlement of occupational duties. The records reveal that G, an employee of the victim company, is not an employee of the victim company, and the defendant stated that he is not an employee of the victim company (53 pages of the trial record) and the defendant directly put the equipment of the corporation into the site and prepared an office and a lodging room (56 pages of the trial record), and was an on-site employee at the time (56 pages of the trial record).

G, M, N, orO received all necessary equipment from the Defendant, such as equipment necessary for the steel and concrete process

The statement (Evidence No. 7 of the defendant submitted by the defendant) and the above M in the court of the first instance where the above M is a party, and the defendant is so-called "the place of appeal"

(referring to a person who is generally responsible for the input of human resources and equipment with respect to a specific process at the construction site and who is carrying out the relevant process). It was responsible for all the parts of the site with respect to steel and concrete process.

In light of the statement, the defendant is part of the defendant's independent status with respect to steel bars and concrete processes from the victim company.