The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the following facts are sufficiently acknowledged: (a) out of the construction cost of the Nowon N Store interior interior interior, the victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim F Co., Ltd.”) made the victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim F Co., Ltd.”) to increase the subcontract price of another field; and (b) the victim Co., Ltd. paid additional construction cost due to the occurrence of KRW 227,520,00 as the additional construction cost of the O Co., Ltd. as the additional construction cost; and (c) the victim Co., Ltd. paid additional construction cost by increasing the subcontract price of another field.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by mistake.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is the co-representative of the victim company, who is located in the fourth floor of the building in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from May 2006 to April 2014, and has overall control over all business, such as business, design, and construction, as the joint representative director of the victim company. In settling the orders, construction and construction costs of the victim company, there was a duty to prevent property damage to the victim company for its own or a third party's interest.

Nevertheless, on September 201, 2013, the Defendant: (a) had the victim company perform the construction work of the NA N N N N N N N N N in Sung-Seon around 201; (b) around that time, the Defendant paid the victim company with the increased construction cost of KRW 108,220,00 (the portion of KRW 46,825,00 in this case was found guilty at the lower court) that the victim company performed through the above subcontractor, and (c) around July 201, from April 201, to April 201, the Defendant paid it to the victim company by increasing the construction cost of another on-site subcontracting that the victim company performed through the said subcontractor; and (d) from July 2010 to April 201, the OE Corporation (hereinafter “OE”).