Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

Defendant .

A. Defendants Burn-in Sock gold and its raw materials were decided to dispose of them, and Defendant C had the right to dispose of them.

In addition, the defendants thought that the disposal of the raw materials, including those for products for added use, such as Burn-in Set gold and its raw materials, 54T Cuummy 3M, would be beneficial to H.

Therefore, the Defendants did not have the intent to obtain unlawful custody.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence (the suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant B, and C: the suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 1.5 million, each of which is sentenced by the public prosecutor’s judgment, is too uneased and unreasonable.)

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination (as to Defendant A), prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal against Defendant A and the prosecutor’s above Defendant A, this paper examined ex officio.

Although the lower court recognized the facts charged against Defendant A as a co-principal of the crime of occupational embezzlement, according to the records, Defendant A retired from the Victim H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) on August 201, and the date and time of the crime indicated in the judgment of the lower court, the above Defendant did not have an identity as a custodian of business. Thus, even if the said Defendant committed the crime of occupational embezzlement in collusion with Defendant C, B, P, and Q, even if the said Defendant committed the crime of occupational embezzlement in collusion with Defendant C, B, and Q, the said Defendant without a status as a custodian of business should be punished pursuant to the proviso to Article 33 of the Criminal Act

Nevertheless, the court below imposed the Defendant A’s punishment on the crime of occupational embezzlement. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

However, the defendant A's above assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.