A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. Defendant - The lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months) is too heavy.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below on the grounds), the part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted part of embezzlement was received by the Defendant from D as debt repayment for the victim even though the Defendant received KRW 2 million on December 24, 2013, and KRW 3 million on January 24, 2014. Thus, the Defendant’s use of KRW 3.8 million out of the above money for personal use constitutes embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B) In the judgment of the court below, the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below on the part of the non-guilty part on the part of the fraud is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles on deception, but the court below acquitted the victim. 2) The judgment of the court below is too minor.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges of embezzlement on the ground that the part of the charges of embezzlement-related 2,00,000 won received from D on December 24, 2013, and 3,000,000 won on January 24, 2014, among the charges of the case 2017 or 590, the Defendant cannot be readily deemed to have received payment from D on behalf of the victim. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of embezzlement of this part of the embezzlement is justifiable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by mismisunderstanding the facts, etc. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit. The Defendant is consistent at the investigation stage, and thus, at the investigation stage, at the same time, on December 24, 2013 among the amount recorded in the facts charged related to the embezzlement of this case.