The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) C (hereinafter only referred to as “C”) shall be deemed to have managed the account under the name of C inasmuch as C actually performed management and supervision of the above site in a consignment relationship with C, while the lower court determined otherwise and acquitted the Defendant on the charges of this case.

In addition, since the defendant and C have carried out the above construction work together and agreed to settle the money later, it was in the same business relationship, and the defendant, one of the partners, arbitrarily uses the funds strictly limited to the construction cost for other purposes, the crime of embezzlement is established, but the court below did not determine this.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged (the facts charged in this part was the primary charges because of the addition of the ancillary facts charged in the trial as seen below) the Defendant managed the construction site of the “new construction works of the E church” and the “new construction works of the I convalescent hospital” on the 12th lot, both H and H when the victim received from the E church of the ReD Maintenance Foundation, and the medical corporation, which he received from the victim C, for the purpose of using it as the construction cost. The Defendant was engaged in the business of keeping, managing, and executing it after receiving the payment from the victim company for the use of the progress payment that the victim received from the owner as the construction site.

(1) On May 17, 2007, the Defendant was to use the land for the construction cost from the victim company at the site of the new construction of the E church.