Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

(2) the date of this judgment.

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles (as to the crime No. 2, 3, and 2 of the facts stated in the judgment of the court of first instance) D D (as to the crime No. 3 of the judgment of the court of second instance, the private letter, which is almost the only property of D fishery partnership corporations (hereinafter “instant corporation”) is sold, and the right of share holder was a former right holder

YA withdrawal, de facto dissolution of a corporation, and the Defendant has the right to share 17% of the shares in the instant corporation and to receive dividends and settlement money according to that ratio.

Therefore, it was voluntarily used within the scope of dividends and settlement money due to the above shares.

Even if an illegal acquisition intent cannot be recognized, and as long as there is a legitimate right, the refusal of return cannot be deemed to be “the refusal of return” in the crime of embezzlement.

B. While the Defendant asserts that the punishment of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for one year, one year of imprisonment, and two years of suspended sentence for eight months, one year of suspended sentence) was too unreasonable, the prosecutor filed an appeal by asserting that it is too unfasible and unfair, while the prosecutor filed an appeal by asserting that it is too unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the defendant and the prosecutor filed each appeal against the judgment of the court below against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the appeal cases against the judgment of the court below. Each of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is in a concurrent criminal relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be imposed within the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained

On the other hand, even if there are grounds for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. The judgment of the court below as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below.