A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. Since the amount of embezzlement stated in the list of crimes committed by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles was disbursed as expenses for business preparation for the victim company, monthly salary for employees, etc., this does not constitute embezzlement, it was planned to settle the funds in the process of establishing the victim company and preparing the business, and was within the scope of legitimate business execution, such as obtaining the consent of the partners, there was no intent of embezzlement by the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the original judgment, the Defendant argued to the same purport. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the Defendant’s use of the victim’s company’s funds for the same purpose as stated in the annexed crime list constitutes occupational embezzlement, and the Defendant’s act of embezzlement is also recognized in light of the place of use and the circumstances of use. (2) It is nothing more than that the representative director of the company or the person, who has carried out de facto affairs related to the custody and operation of the company’s funds corresponding thereto, withdraws and uses large amount of company funds for purposes other than provisional payment for the company as well as that there is no agreement on interest or maturity, and it is nothing more than that of arbitrarily lending and disposing of the company’s funds for private use by taking advantage of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do135 delivered on April 27, 2006, etc.). Meanwhile, the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement is called the intent of unlawful acquisition.