Nos. 1 and 2-A of the judgment of the defendant;

No. 2-2 of the holding of the court below for each crime of 3 years.

A. In relation to ① occupational breach of trust (Article 1 of the original criminal facts), the Defendant: (a) prepared a document necessary for confirming the facts and establishing a right to collateral security with F, a creditor, and written to F, but this was only prepared under the condition that F, until the Defendant obtained the authorization for the construction of a golf course in Gyeongnam-Namcheon, the Defendant was bound to keep the said document; (b) there was no fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the victim R’s office transfer cost to F, but did not have the intent to deceive or defraud the victim; (c) with respect to embezzlement, KRW 200 million borrowed from the victim R for an auction project, while the Defendant borrowed KRW 100,000,000,000, which was kept in custody for return to the victim due to the progress of the auction project, was not refunded to F, and the remainder money was not in the status of the Defendant’s custody of the down payment or other costs, as well as the Defendant’s custody of the victim.

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

In the grounds of appeal, the Defendant asserted in relation to the occupational breach of trust under paragraph (2) of the facts charged, that the obligee N andO withdrawn a civil lawsuit against the victim C, and that the victim C, as a result of monetary damage, did not incur any damage. However, the above argument was withdrawn during the second trial of the trial.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (the sentence No. 1, No. 2-a, and No. 3 of the original judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for 3 years and No. 2-b. of the original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years) is too unreasonable.

2. The act of embezzlement.