A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the portion not guilty (the charge of occupational embezzlement related to the B/L fishing right exercise fee) although it could be found that the Defendant received a total of KRW 45 million from J in advance and used it for private purposes as stated in this part of the facts charged, which acquitted the Defendant of the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the portion not guilty.

B. The sentence of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court stated that ① the Defendant appears to have agreed to receive B’s account balance each time when the Defendant deposited money from K for the following year, ② Defendant, J, and K lent KRW 45 million over several occasions by J’s mother, and Defendant agreed to pay the exercise fee on behalf of the Defendant at the due date of payment of the exercise fee, and subrogated the exercise fee by J; ③ K borrowed KRW 25 million in addition to the above KRW 45 million to the Defendant and received a return after it. ④ Defendant appears to have been aware of the fact that the Defendant received money from K and N for a long time; ⑤ Defendant’s account balance at each time when the money was deposited from K was small, and thus, Defendant could not be deemed to have received the exercise fee in installments, and the above evidence presented by the prosecutor to the extent that the Defendant did not have any reasonable doubt as to the above exercise fee in installments.

(2) The court below's decision is based on the above circumstances as stated by the court below.