The judgment below

Part concerning each crime of Nos. 2 and 3 of the ruling shall be reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the mistake of facts (of the crimes of Articles 1 and 3 and 2 in the original judgment), (1) there is no fact that the defendant told E to change the adjustment of GSS in cash and received money in relation to the fraud (the crime of Article 1 in the original judgment). ② In relation to the part of occupational breach of trust (the crime of Article 3 in the original judgment), there is no actual damage to the dispute resolution committee, and ③ in relation to the part of occupational embezzlement (the crime of Article 2 in the original judgment), it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below as to the crime of Article 23, 24, 29, 33, 360, and 63,3600, excluding the remaining part of the crime of occupational embezzlement (the crime of Attached Table 2 in the judgment of the original judgment), the actual goods were supplied to the part on the part of the main sentence, and thus, it cannot be established as a crime of occupational embezzlement.

2. In full view of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts, as to the fraud part, Eul has consistently stated in the investigation stage and the court below's decision that "E has paid the defendant a total of KRW 1,581,916 in cash due to the change in cash," and there is no discovery of any circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement, so it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant has taken the above KRW 1,581,916 by deceiving E, and the crime of occupational breach of trust includes not only the case where the "when the defendant has inflicted property damage" but also the case where the risk of property damage has been caused. If the defendant did not find the portion of the incentive which was falsely computerized through E in cash in the decision of the court below.