Defendant .

A. (1) Defendant (1) The legal brief submitted after the lapse of the period for appeal due to mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is determined only to the extent of supplement in case of supplement in the grounds for appeal, and Defendant’s assertion on additional occupational embezzlement is also examined as to the changes in indictment at the trial.

(A) As to embezzlement, the Defendant refused to return the vehicle from the vehicle from the vehicle owner owned by I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) on November 201, 201. However, the Defendant had a claim exceeding KRW 600 million in total, including the vehicle installments (16,375,34 won), design service charges (280,000 won), loan claims (280,000 won), and the Defendant refused to return the vehicle from the vehicle owner to secure the claim. As such, the Defendant did not intend to obtain unlawful acquisition.

(B) As to embezzlement of occupational duties, the Defendant’s KRW 15 million, which was delivered on June 11, 200 from the victim F, is not an investment in the damaged juristic person, but merely merely an amount borrowed by the Defendant himself. The number 1 through 28 in the annexed list of crimes (1) cannot be deemed to constitute occupational embezzlement. 2) The Defendant’s ownership of the damaged juristic person, such as installment payments, maintenance expenses, etc., should be excluded from the amount of embezzlement. Of the annexed list (2) Nos. 60 of the annexed list of crimes, KRW 99,487, and KRW 688,345, KRW 311,346, KRW 952,848, KRW 114, KRW 309, KRW 487 among the annexed list of crimes, KRW 309, KRW 3087 among the annexed list of crimes, KRW 1308, KRW 1307, KRW 3197, KRW 2097, KRW 3197,5197.37.37.20.

It is proved that the money withdrawn in cash was used by the defendant for business expenses to publicize the damaged corporation and that the defendant used the money for personal purposes.