The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Of the instant facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of larceny against one of the following: (a) and acquitted the Defendant on the charge of embezzlement against one of the following: (b) each of the following facts charged; (c) each of the following facts charged was found not guilty; (d) each of the following facts charged; (e) the crime of intrusion on a structure; (e) theft against the back-handling facility; (e) theft against the back-handling list and heading list; and (e) embezzlement against the ski; and (e) damage to property against the ski against the ski; and (e) sentenced only the charge of causing property damage against the ski.

The prosecutor did not appeal against the judgment of the court below, and only the defendant filed an appeal against the guilty portion. The part not guilty (the larceny against the second part of crowdfunding) of the judgment of the court below is separate or finalized and is not subject to trial in the trial, and the part not guilty (the crime of embezzlement against the first half, second, cut, one, and n90 tons) of the reasons of the judgment of the court below is transferred to the trial, but it is deemed that the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below (the crime of embezzlement against the first half, second, cut, and n90 tons) was exempted from the object of public defense between the parties. Thus, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below's non-guilty is not followed,

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error1) In regard to the larceny in the latter processing place (which is equivalent to KRW 20,350,000), the first processing place in this case’s post-processing place’s list is a thing owned by the Defendant installed by the Defendant, and thus, theft cannot be established against that part. 2) As to the larceny in the latter processing place’s list (which is equivalent to KRW 2,50,000,000), the Defendant did not bring about the instant list in the factory.

3) As to the part of ski-ro embezzlement in this case, only an excessive amount of repair costs due to frequent breakdown of Ski-ro embezzlement in this case, and it is nothing more than a repairer to cause damage to the repairer instead of unpaid repair costs. As such, the Defendant did not intend to obtain illegal gains. 4) As to the part of the destruction and damage of ski-ro embezzlement, the instant cutting was already discarded on March 2010, before the Defendant took over, and the Defendant only was the Defendant.