A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A. Since the two pages overlap in the defendant's warehouse for mistake of facts have been left in part, the amount should be excluded from the amount of embezzlement. The defendant returned 40 million won to the damaged company, and since the defendant supplied the goods to the restaurant operated by the wife of E, the complainant, and was not paid 20 million won, the amount equivalent to the above should be excluded from the amount of embezzlement, the court below erred in recognizing the amount of embezzlement, reflecting these circumstances, thereby failing to deduct it from the amount of embezzlement.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the content of “28,000 kg for the second instance” in the facts charged as “24,865.03 kg for the second instance,” and “151,700,000 g for the second instance” in the facts charged as “136,025,150 g for the second instance,” respectively, and the lower court changed the subject of the judgment by permitting it. As such, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for reversal.

Even if the defendant contests the amount of embezzlement, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, so we will review below.

B. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, from October 20, 201 to October 21, 2012 when the police investigation was conducted, the Defendant stated that he voluntarily disposed of KRW 5,000 g and 3,000 g for each of the trade parties, F, etc., of KRW 1 gg per 1 g, 28,000 and KRW 3,900, which were owned by the victimized company in the freezing warehouse B from around October 20, 201 to around the 21st of the same month. The Defendant provided that the Defendant had the son’s custody of the son B, which was the victim, even though he had the son’s custody of the son B.