A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 did not recognize the status of a custodian in the crime of embezzlement and did not have the intention of embezzlement.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. ex officio determination, Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act provide that when a person who committed an offense without accusation makes a confession or accepts a person before the judgment or disciplinary action on the reported case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or remitted.

According to the records, at the first trial date of December 5, 2017, the Defendant recognized all the facts charged as to the instant accusation, and led to the confession of the Defendant without accusation. The Defendant’s case against the Defendant with no accusation is subject to a non-prosecution disposition and the judgment becomes final and conclusive. As such, the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant ought to be reduced or exempted as necessary pursuant to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of embezzlement and accusation is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the lower court’s judgment cannot be reversed in its entirety.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles against the judgment of the court is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined.

3. Determination as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to embezzlement)

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the owner of the real estate 1/2 share in the instant real estate could sufficiently be recognized as being the victim’s life.

(1) In cases of private documents, if a seal imprinted in the name of preparation affixed to the document is affixed with the seal affixed thereto, barring any special circumstance.