A. Error of fact 1) List of crime sight as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the list of crime sight”).

1) The transfer of the funds as described in Nos. 1 through 11 to the victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd”).

A) As the representative director of the company, the money of the victim company was transferred as part of the payment of remuneration that has been previously received. The deposit of KRW 700 million into the defendant account after reporting the closure of business with respect to the victim company was transferred to the defendant account in order to prevent the defendant’s husband from voluntarily withdrawing the funds of the victim company in the process of organizing the victim company after reporting the closure of business with respect to the victim company, and is not for private purposes. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant embezzled with the intent of embezzlement or illegal acquisition. 2) The crime of embezzlement is established

Even if the amount transferred or withdrawn is not all, the crime of embezzlement should be established only for the amount actually used for personal use by the defendant.

However, the amount used by the Defendant for personal purposes is KRW 239,025,826, out of KRW 700,000 ( KRW 700,000,000 that was withdrawn from the victim company account and deposited into the Defendant account on July 9, 2018) set forth in 12 of the list of crimes in the lower judgment. Therefore, this portion of the embezzlement should be limited to KRW 239,025,82

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the assertion of embezzlement, which is a constituent element of embezzlement, and the crime of embezzlement is established when there is an objective act that is recognizable to the outside of the intent of unlawful acquisition (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904, Dec. 9, 2004). In this case, the intent of unlawful acquisition is in fact the ownership of another’s property that is in custody for the purpose of promoting one’s own or a third party’s own interest.