Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the charges by misunderstanding the facts, even though it is impossible to recognize the Defendant’s intent of embezzlement.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same as the lower court’s judgment regarding the assertion of mistake of facts.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in the court below. ① Defendant arbitrarily released the funds of the victim company and lent the funds to the Defendant’s friendship is using the funds of the victim company as the money of the victim company with a separate personality, and in itself constitutes embezzlement recognized as an intention of unlawful acquisition, regardless of the repayment of loans thereafter, it constitutes embezzlement; ② Defendant loaned the money of two million won owned by the victim company to the pro- job AB on July 30, 2008 without the consent of the investigative agency; and ② on March 25, 2010, the Defendant lent the money of two million won owned by the victim company to the victim company to the victim AB on July 30, 2008 without the consent of D by the investigative agency.

Considering the following: (a) the Defendant stated that he/she was the victim’s consent; and (b) there is no evidence to deem that he/she lent the money at least KRW 7,32 per annum in the daily list of crimes attached to the lower court’s judgment; (c) the Defendant embezzled the money at KRW 7,32 per annum in the list of crimes attached to the lower court’s judgment with his/her intent to obtain unlawful acquisition.

The judgment of the court below is justified.

3. The lower court’s judgment on the wrongful assertion of sentencing.