Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 30 million.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Although the defendant should manage and operate the company's funds in a transparent manner as the representative director of a corporation, the crime of this case by allowing the victim company to deposit funds in the defendant's personal account continuously over a long period of time into the defendant's personal account and mixing them with the defendant's property is not good in light of the total amount of embezzlement, the frequency and period of embezzlement, etc.

This crime is not only a serious damage to the trust of the adequacy of the financial management and accounting of the corporation, but also a risk of undermining the interests of interested parties, including creditors of the company.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the crime, committed a mistake in depth; (b) there is no criminal conviction exceeding the fine; (c) some of the embezzled money was used as employee encouragement and entertainment expenses for a trader; (d) the Defendant deposited and returned the embezzled money into the company account; and (e) the Defendant appears to have contributed greatly to the Defendant’s investment in considerable capital for the company; and (e) other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background of the crime, means and consequence, the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing, are too unreasonable.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

[Dao-written judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court are the same as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court of original instance. Thus, it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.