A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant, who received money from the Defendant’s account, again remitted the money to the account of the Chairperson of the COperational Committee, thereby completing the status as a custodian of the said money.

After that, only the defendant used the money with the I's permission.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of embezzlement of occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case on the premise that the Defendant still maintains the status of custodian of the said money when using the money, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one month imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be acknowledged that the defendant affixed the official seal in his name in the written request for deposit without the approval of the director of the cleaning administration division at the time of the government, and used the above written request for deposit. The defendant did not know the process of obtaining the official seal in the name of the director of the cleaning administration division at the time of the government, and there was the consent of the above official custodian or the nominal owner

The judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged, although it is not possible to do so, is erroneous as affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail by asserting that the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine of the Defendant’s occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case is identical to the grounds for appeal, and the lower court stated in detail the Defendant’s assertion and its determination. In line with the records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the status of custodian in the occupational embezzlement

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's status.