A. 18,988,701 won used by the defendant of mistake of facts as stated in the facts charged of the occupational embezzlement of this case is not the amount kept for D as the representative of the victim incorporated association D (hereinafter “D”), but the amount of KRW 25,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was directly borrowed from D and D’s representative, as the representative of the victim incorporated association D (hereinafter “D”).

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding the Defendant guilty of the instant charges of occupational embezzlement.

B. The lower court’s sentence that sentenced six months of imprisonment with prison labor is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged that the lower court used only part of KRW 25 million, which was individually borrowed from J, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s above assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable and it is not erroneous as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

① The Defendant determined that the execution of the instant service agreement is impossible, and completed and submitted a report (hereinafter “instant report”) under the title “A Q”, which was the result of the instant alternative project, to D, stated that the Defendant lent KRW 25 million out of the 30 million received in return, to the Defendant’s individual, and that there was a statement at the trial of the J as evidence corresponding thereto.

The J, however, stated in the prosecution that “this case’s service contract was concluded and the facts did not perform the service,” and the reference to the instant report was not made at all, the second book No. 1 of the evidence record.