A. 1) Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of occupational embezzlement of KRW 2,450,80 out of KRW 13,60,00 in the annexed crime list (2) net 4 through 9,000 in the annexed crime list (2) and KRW 55,492,950 in the annexed crime list (4) and KRW 71,190,878 in the annexed crime list (2) as indicated in the judgment of the lower court. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that he was guilty of KRW 2,450,80 in the annexed crime list (2) net 13,60,000 in the annexed crime list (the first 3,600,000 won in the above 3,60,000 won in the judgment of the lower court), and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for

2) Accordingly, the Defendant appealed on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of sentencing with respect to the convicted portion, and the Prosecutor appealed on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts as to the acquitted portion and misunderstanding of sentencing

Before remanding, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the embezzlement of occupational embezzlement 8 years from the No. 8 of the List of Crimes (2) among the parts found not guilty at the lower court, and sentenced the Defendant to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor when destroying the remainder of the conviction in the concurrent crime relationship (the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the remainder of the conviction) and dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal on the non-guilty portion.

3) The Defendant appealed against the judgment of the lower court before remanding.

The Supreme Court tried to further examine whether the Defendant’s disbursement of KRW 1,265,50 in the name of the litigation cost, such as the place of use of the money withdrawn on July 8, 2013 from the deposit account of the victim limited partnership company G (hereinafter “instant company”) before remanding the case of embezzlement of 8 years from the Nos. 8 of the annexed crime list (2) constitutes the embezzlement.

However, in finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the degree of proof of embezzlement, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.