The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime described in this part of the facts charged was committed by mistake of facts (as to the part of the facts charged in this case’s indictment, such as electronic records against the Defendant), and all of the acts committed by A in charge, and the Defendant only approved the relevant documents according to his position, and the Defendant did not commit the crime in collusion with A and A, as described in this part of the facts charged.

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

2. Determination

A. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① A and A have discussed at an investigative agency upon completion of the power-driven process as the kind of product by gathering A, A, and the Defendant, and included a fabricated numerical value in A, upon the completion of the power-driven process as the kind of product.

The defendant made a statement, and the defendant also entered false data with A and A in the computer system, and approved it with knowledge of the fact.

In light of the facts stated, (2) the defendant, A, and A stated in the original court court that they recognized all the facts charged, and (3) the defendant denies this part of the facts charged, but in light of the fact that this part of the facts charged is closely related to the crime of embezzlement of this case and that there is no reasonable explanation as to the grounds why the defendant denies the crime of embezzlement of this case, and that there is credibility of confession made by the defendant, A, and A in the investigative agency and the court of original instance, the court below convicting the defendant of this part of the facts charged is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the Defendant’s mistake against the Defendant, the Defendant’s recovery of damage with respect to the embezzled part, and the Defendant’s criminal conviction was not less than a suspended sentence.