The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, fraud with respect to V.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is the occupational embezzlement (2014 Highest 8977): The relationship in which the funds of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) and the personal funds of the Defendant were combinedly managed and managed, and the Defendant paid the instant funds to the instant company with the awareness that it would settle and use the provisional payment or the provisional payment, so there was no intention of embezzlement.

The fraud against K (2015 order 2541): The defendant did not enter into a goods supply contract with K, and W requested K to supply goods with the debt relationship with the defendant.

Since the defendant did not pay the price of the goods due to the settlement of the price of the goods with W, there is no fact that he acquired the price of the goods with no criminal intent to acquire it.

The point of embezzlement (2015 high group 3194): The instant money that the Defendant received from theO was used as construction price under the business agreement, and thus there was no intention of embezzlement.

In light of the fact that a contract for the supply of goods with the Defendant and V is a continuous transaction relationship on February 5, 2014, and there was a repayment details after February 5, 2014, the Defendant had the intent to pay and obtain money at the time, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

The sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

In fact, the judgment of the misunderstanding of facts is based on the occupational embezzlement (2014 highest 8977). The representative director of the relevant company’s legal doctrine did not have any agreement on interest or maturity while withdrawing and using large company funds for any purpose other than expenditure for the company as provisional payment, etc., and it does not go through legitimate procedures such as a resolution of the board of directors, etc. without going through legitimate procedures, such as resolution of the board of directors, goes beyond the generally acceptable scope, and constitutes embezzlement, as it goes against the act of arbitrarily lending and disposing of company funds for private purposes by using the status of the representative director (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do3399, May 27, 2010; 2003Do135, Apr. 27, 2006).