The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, at the site of Newly-built Corporation B, recognized the fact that he received from the victim company a transfer of personnel expenses from the victim company to the account in the name of false labor personnel by raising a list of false labor personnel who was not actually working at the site of Newly-built Corporation B, but did not deceiving the victim company by being under agreement with L

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant asserted a misunderstanding of facts at the lower court’s trial to the same purport. The lower court acknowledged the Defendant’s fraud by taking account of the evidence such as the witness examination protocol, M’s factual confirmation, investigation report (O telephone conversation investigation) (M telephone communications investigation), investigation report (M telephone communications investigation), daily work labor cost payment record, and financial transaction details of each account, etc. of the witnesses L who have been lawfully adopted and investigated. 2) The evidence mentioned above, in particular, the testimony of the witness L of the lower court is consistent, specific, and consistent from the investigative agency to the lower court court’s trial, and is supported by the remaining evidence, and can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant acquired money as personnel expenses by deceiving the victim as stated in its reasoning.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is sufficiently acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

B. The instant crime of determining unfair sentencing is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant, such as: (a) the Defendant deceivings the victim and received a remittance of personnel expenses under the name of a false worker who did not actually work at the construction site; (b) the commission of the criminal act was defective; (c) the amount of damage was not small; and (d) the Defendant denies the

However, there is no previous difference between the defendant and the fine.