The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, it is related to freezing towers.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the judgment of the court below on the misconception of facts, the defendant's occupational embezzlement of the freezing tower is merely one week without the intention of unlawful acquisition, but the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor examined the case at the trial, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment in the indictment as stated in Paragraph (2) of the facts charged. The part of the judgment below on August 22, 2012, stating, "In order to use it for the business of supplying goods and supplying goods, the defendant applied for changes in the indictment as stated in Paragraph (2) of the same Article, "Around August 22, 2012, the defendant is unable to maintain the part of the judgment of the court below, because the above company was retired and the representative director I requested the return of the said frozen tower because he did not return it to the victim."

However, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the above argument of mistake of facts by the defendant is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in the below.

B. Of the judgment of the court below regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the summary of the occupational embezzlement regarding freezing towers is as indicated below (Danned Judgment). The court below convicted the Defendant of the facts charged prior to the alteration on the grounds of the Defendant’s and I’s statement, etc.

(A) The defendant, who made a confession of all the facts charged at the court below, denies part of the facts charged as above). The defendant's intent of illegal acquisition in embezzlement is the intention of unlawful acquisition.