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

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Although H, a representative director prior to the mistake of facts, received benefits of less than KRW 5 million per month, the lower court excluded the entire amount equivalent to KRW 5 million per month from the amount of embezzlement, and there is no ground to exclude the anti-influence and interest on the borrowings, entertainment expenses, payment in lieu of wages, corporate vehicle leasing fees, etc. from the amount of embezzlement.

Therefore, even though the defendant could be found to have embezzled the funds of the victim company under the pretext of salary exceeding 111,356,920 won, the court below found the defendant not guilty of embezzlement under the pretext of salary embezzlement exceeding 111,356,920 won among the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.

In this case, the court below found the defendant not guilty of KRW 180,30 among the attached crimes Nos. 180,330 and 180,330 among the annexed crimes Nos. 5 once in the annexed crimes list No. 1 of this case among the charged facts in this case.

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, if the amount of embezzlement of the defendant is calculated, the court below recognized the amount of embezzlement of the defendant as KRW 111,356,920 due to erroneous calculation, even though the sum as shown in the attached Table was KRW 122,326,78.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to a trial by this court, and this is examined below, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from November 23, 2009 to April 30, 2013, is the internal director of E (hereinafter “instant company”) who is a controlled entity of the “E” combined commercial building located in Nam-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).