A. Defendant 1) On May 26, 2010, under the instant loan brokerage agreement, the Defendant received 1250,000 shares of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) from the victim to the account of D (hereinafter “D”) on May 26, 2010, pursuant to the instant loan brokerage agreement, and at the time the said shares were transferred from the victim to the account of D (hereinafter “D”), the total value of KRW 2,185 per share was 2,731,250,000 (=2,185 won x 1250,00 won). However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that affected the conclusion of the judgment by recognizing the said shares as KRW 3,156.78 won per share, 1250,000 per share as KRW 3,945,975,000 per share.

B) Since the amount of embezzlement should be calculated based on the value of the property at the time when the crime of embezzlement was established, in cases where the shares are disposed of and embezzled, the amount of embezzlement should be calculated on the basis of the market price of the shares at the time of disposal of the shares. According to this, the above 1250,000 won, which was the value of the 1250,000 won, stated in the column for acquisition price of the attached list of crimes in the judgment below, is excessive and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment by recognizing the amount of embezzlement as KRW 3,945,975,00, which is the value of the victim’s stock acquisition. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) of

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles, the above facts of the defendant's assertion are acknowledged, but Article 361-5 subparagraph 14 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "when a mistake of fact affects the judgment," as the grounds for appeal, it means that the judgment affects the order of the judgment, and the mistake of fact is a ground for prosecution, illegality, or responsibility.