The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the third trial date, the Defendant and the defense counsel explicitly withdrawn the misapprehension of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (afford) on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

1) The Defendant was authorized to prepare each of the instant retroactive contracts, and at least believed that he/she has such authority.

2) Since the Defendant’s occupational embezzlement is the Defendant, not the victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) as the owner of KRW 10 million, who received the name of criminal agreement from M from M, the Defendant used the above KRW 10 million.

Even if embezzlement is not established for the victimized company, embezzlement is not established.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant alleged that the lower court’s summary of the judgment is similar to the allegation in the grounds of appeal in this part.

In light of the following circumstances, the court below rejected the above assertion on the ground that the defendant did not have the right to prepare each retroactive contract of this case on behalf of the damaged company and the defendant was aware of it, in light of the facts revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.

(1) In entering into a contract that causes changes in the rights of the company, the authority is, in principle, belonging to the representative, unless it is delegated individually by internal regulations or internal regulations of the company.

However, according to the internal rules, such as the provision on the delegation of delegation by the victimized company, the Defendant, as the chief of the victimized company, was delegated with the authority concerning the affairs that directly burden the company or incur expenditure, such as the act of cause or the resolution on expenditure.