The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Although there is sufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant agreed to perform the above landscape architecture construction work in Chuncheon BTB, which orders the victim D with the same type of business, the defendant did not enter into a partnership contract between the defendant and the victim, but rather, it was merely a subcontract to the victim and it was found that the defendant was merely a subcontract for the above landscape construction work, and the defendant found the defendant not guilty of the charges of embezzlement without paying the above construction cost to the victim.

2. Judgment ex officio due to changes in indictment;

A. Examining the prosecutor’s judgment on the grounds of appeal ex officio prior to the judgment, the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment with respect to the embezzlement of the facts charged in the instant case and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission. Thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the modified facts charged, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal.

B. Around August 2009, the Defendant agreed to perform the project for landscaping of the model house in Chuncheon, which orders the victim from the E office operated by the victim D in Sincheon-si to the same business as the victim, at the E office operated by the victim D in Gucheon-si.

Around September 2009, the Defendant received KRW 110,500,000 from Multilateral won for the model house landscaping construction works in Chuncheon Bridge, and kept it for the victim. At around that time, the Defendant paid KRW 57 million to the victim and embezzled the remainder of KRW 53,50,000 as the Defendant Company’s operating expenses.

3. According to the prosecutor’s judgment on the grounds of appeal, the defendant exceeds KRW 50 million against the victim.