The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, in accordance with the direction of E, the representative director of the victim company, issued false tax invoices to Saturdays and returned the remainder of the transport cost paid by the victim company on the basis of the tax invoice to them in cash, and only delivered them to the above E through N, the accounting officer of the victim company, or used them for necessary operating expenses at the construction site.

Therefore, the Defendant did not have awareness that he would inflict property damage on the victim company by violating his duties as a field warden at the time. The possibility that the money the Defendant delivered to N and delivered to N to E cannot be ruled out that it was used for the victim company. Thus, the Defendant suffered property damage to the victim company.

It shall not be readily concluded.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misconception of facts, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The degree of the formation of a conviction in a criminal trial on the relevant legal principles must be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it does not require all possible suspicions, and rejection by causing a suspicion without reasonable grounds that is recognized as having probative value is beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation.

The reasonable doubt here refers to the doubt that is reasonable, based on logical and empirical rules, rather than all questions and correspondences, to the probability of facts that cannot be compatible with the facts required. The doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibilities is a reasonable doubt.