The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing on the part of the charge)’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the property itself or its nature as stolen property is not maintained, even though the Defendant received the money that he/she had embezzled through an occupational embezzlement in 2012 and the money that he/she received for the first time on March 2013, 201.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the defendant's decision on the guilty part prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

The court below recognized the first criminal facts of the judgment of the court below as the crime of occupational embezzlement against the defendant.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was in the position of the director of the accounting division from October 10, 2012 to October 11, 2012. However, the Defendant merely took charge of accounting and tax affairs, and the Defendant was in the custody of passbook, cash card, corporate seal book, etc. of the victim company, and only E is in the position of the manager of the business, and the Defendant was not in the position of the custodian of the business.

(A) Article 35(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 355(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 3504, Jan. 1, 2005) provides that a defendant who does not have a status as a custodian of occupational affairs shall be punished pursuant

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Do1901 delivered on October 10, 1989, and Supreme Court Decision 86Do1517 delivered on October 28, 1986, etc.). Nevertheless, the lower court imposed on the Defendant the punishment prescribed in Article 356 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of punishment for the accomplice who has no status relation with the crime of occupational embezzlement, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.