A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not make an embezzlement of the victim company's money, since the Defendant received money from the victim company and properly consumed the money, and only received the remaining amount after deducting the above money from the benefits or returned it by depositing the money again in the victim company.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court convicted the Defendant on the charge of misunderstanding the facts charged No. 4, 6, 7, 14, 17, 17, 21, 23-25, 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38, 42, 46, 47, 49, 50, 55, 61, 62, 68, 72-74, 78, 94, 101, 104-107, 110, 114, 117, 118, 124, 126, 138-140, 148, 148, 148, 149, 162, 163, 106, 107, 110-114, 117, 124, 136.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court of the first instance and the court of the first instance, i.e., ① the operator of the victim company stated consistently to the effect that the Defendant was not allowed from the investigative agency to use the funds of the victim company managed by the Defendant for personal purposes from the investigation agency to the court of the lower court; ② the Defendant was also remitted in the process of the investigation by the prosecution; ② the Defendant was transferred in the future of the Defendant; the Defendant was transferred in the J, K, and L’s family members; the money transferred to Ma, N, orO was transferred to the Defendant for personal purposes; (i) it corresponds to the statement and part of the victim company; and (iii) the financial situation of the victim company at the time of the Defendant’s service; and