In the case of the release of goods out of the country, there is no omission because the court's misapprehension of legal principles and the victim of mistake of facts fully approves the additional budget request.

Therefore, the difference between the electronically stored goods and the quantity released from each department should be deemed to have been embezzled by the defendant.

Even if it is assumed that the defendant voluntarily responded to another person's request for delivery, the defendant is also liable for the illegal delivery.

As such, the amount embezzled by the defendant reaches KRW 668,270,323.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the defendant's embezzlement amount to 366,389,073 won and acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement).

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too uncomfortable.

Defendant

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Judgment

With respect to the prosecutor's misapprehension of the legal principles on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant arbitrarily released the goods owned by the victim company in total of about 668,270,323 won in total over 220 times, as shown in the attached list of crimes, by manipulating the computer as if the marketing department of the victim company did not request the release of the goods for the victim company, while the defendant managed the goods, such as the first recall, and the second vice governor of the victim company in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, at the D office of business of the victim company located in Mapo-gu around September 2013 to August 21, 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim company that was kept in business.

Judgment

Recognition of guilt in a criminal trial shall be a judge.