The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the charge of embezzlement at least 4,6,11 of the annexed list of crimes in the indictment of this case, on the ground that the defendant's status as a custodian required in the crime of embezzlement is not recognized, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, the prosecutor ex officio examined the facts charged in this case on the fifth trial date of the trial of the party, and applied for the change of indictment to the effect that the applicable provisions of this case are changed to "Fraud" and the applicable provisions of this case are changed to "Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act". Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

3. In conclusion, the judgment below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows, since the above reasons for ex officio reversal exist.

Criminal facts

From May 2006 to December 2009, the Defendant was in office as technical director of the Victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) from May 2006 to December 2, 2009, and had the Victim Co., Ltd. actually carried out contracted E Corporation (hereinafter “instant Corporation”) and had the Victim Co., Ltd carried out funds, by deceiving the Victim Co., Ltd., and received money from the Victim Co., Ltd. to use it for the repayment of personal debt.

1. Around January 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim company as to the need for the above construction fund.

However, even if the Defendant received money from the victim company, it was thought that the Defendant repaid personal debt to N, other than the construction fund, or used it at a construction site unrelated to the instant construction project.

The defendant deceivings the victim company as such, and its deceivings it from the victim company on January 23, 2009.