The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from around July 16, 2013 to December 3, 2013, worked as a driver of a DNA ready-mixed vehicle owned by the victim C, and that the Defendant agreed to 10 litress via a gas station within “F” located in the Chungcheongbuk-gun E, after ten hours a day using the above ready-mixed vehicle.

The victim got 200,000,000 won per day of transportation when a driver 10,000 liter from the above “F” oil on the ready-mixed vehicle, and 370,000,000 won per day of transportation when not oiling. As such, if the Defendant received a certificate of custody because all of the 100 liters on the above ready-mixed vehicle do not oil on all of the above ready-mixed vehicle, the Defendant later got the duty to oil on the above ready-mixed vehicle or return the certificate of custody to the victim.

On December 3, 2013, the Defendant: (a) operated the above ready-mixed vehicle, and (b) 60 liters via the oil station in the “F” facility; (c) received a certificate of custody of 40 liters; and (d) arbitrarily provided 40 liters per liters (1,700 won per liter) on the vehicle with G ready-mixed owned by the Defendant on December 4, 2013.

As a result, the defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to about 58,00 won of the above transit price, and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by integrating the evidence in its judgment.

3. Judgment on the appeal by the defendant

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was completed by the Defendant, after completing December 3, 2013, up to 200 liters on the ready-mixed vehicle, but the oil left over 40 liters, and the oil left over with C’s consent.

Therefore, breach of trust is not established.

B. The lower court’s determination 1) is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

2) First, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court.