A. Defendant 1) In relation to the embezzlement described in paragraph (3) of the crime of misunderstanding the facts as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant paid K 1.95 million won, 4.1 million won to ZB, 2 million won to AB, and 4.2 million won in total as tuition fees (AD: 2 million won, AE: 400,000 won, 40 million won in AE: 400,000 won, 1.2 million won in AM: 4.4 million won, 2 million won in AC: 300,300, 4.3 million won in AO: 3 million won in total; 4.3 million won in BD: 2,639,160 won in criminal facts as stated in paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below, and the Defendant’s embezzlement is 1.1,989,160 won in total and 3 million won in writing, 2006, 4000 won in the above case of 2.3 million won in writing.

With regard to the embezzlement portion as stated in paragraph (4) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, the defendant paid the unregistered instructors a sum of KRW 4.7 million (A Q: KRW 6 million; KRW 900,000; KRW 900,000; KRW 600,000; KRW 500,000; KRW 1.2 million: Z: KRW 1.2 million; and KRW 90,000; KRW 90,000) as tuition fees, and thus the defendant's embezzlement amount is KRW 1.3 million, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in October, and additional collection KRW 4.7 million) is too unreasonable. B. The prosecutor (the foregoing sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant) is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor must prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing an intent to acquire unlawful acquisition and a judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts. The proof is a strict evidence that has probative value that makes a judge not having any reasonable doubt.