The guilty part of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof of each of the facts charged and there was no objective ground that the Defendant paid the provisional deposit or repaid the borrowed money from N in the case of KRW 15 million in relation to the sum of KRW 13 million in the table 1,2, and KRW 5,000,000 in the table 2 (2) of the table 1,2, and 3 of the table 5 of the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below of the second instance). The court below found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that there was no proof of each of the facts charged. The judgment of the court below was erroneous by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In the case of KRW 5-7,349,90 in the table of crime Nos. 5-7,349,90 as indicated in the judgment of the court below of the first instance on the erroneous determination of facts by the defendant (as to the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2), if the head of the management department first pointed out in advance that the payment of the above money should not be made for July 7, 2008 by G, 8, and 9, the defendant did not transfer the above money from the beginning to the G account. In the case of KRW 8-12,00 in the aggregate of KRW 6,151,90 in the table of crime No. 8-12 in the same list of

As the representative director as a major shareholder and the representative director received a scholarship for the school expenses of G, who is his child, there was no intent to obtain the above portion of the charges. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal principles of the judgment of the court of first instance, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (ii) The judgment of the court of second instance, which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, and ① KRW 30 million,00,000,000 as stated in No. 1 500,000 and No. 2 in the attached Table 2 of the judgment of the court of second instance, are returned from the damaged company, and even