Part concerning the second offense in the judgment shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two months.

A. Defendant 1-A of the judgment of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) as to the crime of occupational breach of trust No. 1-A and (b) as to the crime of occupational breach of trust in the judgment of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant repaid F the amount of KRW 10 million on December 22, 2009, KRW 23 million to G, and Defendant paid the amount of KRW 495,978,285 to the victim company with personal funds from September 2, 2009 to December 29, 201, which exceeds the borrowed amount to the victim company, and thus, the victim company’s damage is not practically

B) The notarial deed of this case in the part of the crime of occupational breach of trust No. 1 in the judgment of the court below was prepared by M and N on the part of the defendant's side, and the defendant in the part of the crime of occupational breach of trust in the crime of embezzlement No. 2 in the judgment of the victim company was completely different from the joint guarantor. The defendant sold to K the 3164m2 in Ulsan-gu I forest and J forest and two lots in J forest (hereinafter "the land in this case") and exempted the defendant from the defendant's liability of KRW 50 million. However, K acquired the defendant's obligation of KRW 220 million in the single bank of the victim company, and the defendant used KRW 50 million in the operation fund of the victim company. Thus, it does not constitute embezzlement.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment with prison labor and four months of imprisonment with prison labor with prison labor for each of the crimes of No. 1 on the market) is too unreasonable. B. The lower court’s sentence (six months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes of No. 1 on the market, and four months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes of No. 1 on the market, and four months of each of the crimes

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The part concerning the crime of occupational breach of trust No. 1-A and (b) 1 of the judgment is established when a person who administers another’s business obtains pecuniary advantage or has a third party obtain it by acting in violation of his/her duties and thereby causes loss to the principal. In this case, the term “when property loss is inflicted” is not only where a real loss is inflicted, but also where a risk of actual damage to property has occurred.