A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) The Defendant lent KRW 5,685,00 to the Defendant’s account for the operation of a private teaching institute by transferring money from the Defendant’s account to the private teaching institute account. The Defendant’s loans KRW 60,66,68,69,84,90,98, 130, 140, 156, 160, 184, 192, 193, 245, 252, 281, 284-290, 292, 293, and 48,343,50 won per annum of the crime committed in the attached Table of the judgment below.

2) No. 54-57, 70, 72, 78-83, 86, 94, 96, 106, 107, 109-12, 126, 127, 131, 142-145, 157, 158, 159, 191, 194, 195, 197-199, 210, 211, 231-234, 245, 245, 246, 1126, 127, 131, 194, 195, 197-199, 210, 231-234, 245, 245, 100,000 won, on the day when the defendant withdraws the above money.

3) Although the Defendant used some of the amount individually by withdrawing or transferring it, it cannot be embezzled as a co-operator of a private teaching institute, who received the settlement of profits.

This is supported by the victim's statement that "before 2008, the victim brought about living expenses from the revenue of the private teaching institute without any separate settlement procedure."

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. We examine the argument that the loan was returned. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant lent the amount claimed to the private teaching institute for its operation.

shall not be appointed by a person.

① Since the Defendant had been in the transaction of cash withdrawal and transfer of the account via the account of the victim and the Defendant from time to time, and had been transferred the student’s study expenses to the Defendant’s account, the details deposited from the Defendant’s account to the victim’s account are once again after the Defendant used the Plaintiff’s educational institute’s revenue.