The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. In relation to the summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors), the fact that the Defendant directly paid the sales proceeds that the Defendant should pay to HFF to I and J as advance payment, but the Defendant was unaware of the fact that I and J embezzled the said money, and there is no fact that he was involved in I and J’s occupational embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant was involved in the crime of occupational embezzlement, such as I and J, in collusion with the defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In order to constitute a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to implement a crime through functional control based on the joint doctor as a subjective element, and the intention of joint process here is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act and to allow it without restraint, and it should be one to commit a specific criminal act as a joint doctor, and it should be intended to move to the execution of one’s own criminal act by using another’s criminal act.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do995 Decided June 24, 2004; 2008Do5399 Decided July 28, 201; 201Do5365 Decided July 12, 2012, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do5365, Jul. 2, 2012).

I and J's establishment of the crime of occupational embezzlement, the following circumstances can be acknowledged according to evidence and records duly examined and adopted by the court below.

① The Defendant was supplied with agricultural products from H agricultural cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as “HF”) and sold meat and other agricultural products, and continued to engage in transactions with the payment of the price for agricultural products to HFF payments (the actual transaction was conducted in the name of the Defendant, but is deemed to have been traded by the Defendant, who is an agent for convenience purposes; hereinafter the same shall apply), and ② I and J (hereinafter referred to as “I”) shall be determined by HFF.