1. As to the grounds of appeal on Defendant A’s conviction of occupational embezzlement

A. In a case where there is no possibility that the argument regarding the principle of incompetence may seriously disadvantage the defendant's exercise of his right of defense, the court recognized facts different from the facts charged without going through the amendment process of indictment.

Even if it does not violate the principle of indemnite disadvantage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do1651, Jun. 30, 201; 2013Do13444, Dec. 10, 2015). The gist of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the head of the non-semnite Office W, under the direction of the Defendant A, shall withdraw from the accounts under the name of the Defendant, Y, S and the Defendant, and then deliver the amount of KRW 300 million (hereinafter referred to as “A.3 billion”), and then, he voluntarily used the amount of KRW 540,600,000,000 to the account under the name of the Honorary Chairperson AC, thereby preserving the amount of KRW 61,30,000,000,000,000 to the Defendant A and the Defendant A’s embezzlement.

The court below rejected Defendant A’s assertion that it was merely reported by W on the settlement of accounts for raising KRW 300 million, and found Defendant A guilty of criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the court below, and determined to the effect that “When KRW 261 billion was included in AAC’s account in the name of AC,” as to the settlement of accounts for preserving KRW 300 million, the court below determined to the effect that the method, process, victim, and amount of damage was identical to this part of the facts charged. However, unlike legal evaluation as to the timing of the occurrence, the court below determined to the effect that “when the amount of KRW 261

The judgment below

According to the reasons, this part is examined.