The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts X was actually conducted by T’s auditors, U’s directors, and Y’s directors, and AC as U’s auditors, and they are entitled to receive remuneration from each of the above companies. As such, the Defendant’s receipt of remuneration under the name X, Y, and AC does not constitute embezzlement. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (4 years of suspended sentence for three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the reversal and the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal prior to the judgment.

The prosecutor changed the facts charged as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act as stated in the judgment of the court below to "the defendant is an employer who employs 40 full-time workers in W in Yangsan-si and operates a V manufacturing business by employing 40 full-time workers in the trade name of Tchisan-si, and changed to the above workplace on December 1, 2010 and did not pay 5,419,662 won to AG retired workers within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on extension of the due date for payment between the parties," and the applicable provisions of the law to add "Article 44 subparagraph 1 and Article 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits" to "Article 44 subparagraph 1 and Article 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits", and this court changed

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below which sentenced one punishment by deeming the violation of the above Labor Standards Act and the remaining criminal facts as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the entire conviction portion cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of facts.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the determination of mistake of facts, X shall be deemed to be T from January 1, 1987 to July 31, 2007.