A. The fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles that acquired shares I (hereinafter “I”) with the funds of JJ (hereinafter “J”) from the part of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) was consistent with the purport of shareholders, executives and employees who owned 70% of the J’s shares.

당시 I는 기업사냥꾼인 AD, AB, W 측의 자의적인 회사 운영으로 심각한 경영난에 처해 있었고, I의 경영이 파탄에 이를 경우 생산기지인 J 역시 도산할 수밖에 없는 상황이었다.

Therefore, the purchase of I's shares is based on management judgment, so it does not constitute embezzlement.

The Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged, did not instruct the payment of the J’s funds under the pretext of the cost of attorney-at-law in the relevant civil and criminal cases and the cost of acceptance of T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “T”), and it was nothing more than ex post facto aware of the aforementioned contents.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of suspended execution, three years of probation, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service in one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실오인 또는 법리오해 주장에 관하여 ⑴ 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)죄 부분 ㈎ 원심은 아래와 같이 판단하였다.

As long as the legal personality of I and J is strictly separated, the issue of whether the defendant's act constitutes embezzlement should be examined from the perspective of the J as the victim.

However, in light of the nature, etc. of the sales business of pets and pets operated by J, even if the relationship with I is severed, the J may continue to exist independently as a separate legal entity.

In addition, the defendant et al. uses the Court's funds as a means of securing the right of management of I under the communication with the AL Co., Ltd. entrusted with the shares of I.