The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal: The punishment sentenced by the court below (10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, observation of protection, and 80 hours of social service) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor who had the grounds for ex officio reversal, the prosecutor applied for amendments to Bill of Indictment that alters the facts charged in the instant case with the “criminal facts” as stated below. Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

1. From March 18, 2013 to April 10, 2017, the Defendant has been engaged in the business of selling and collecting agricultural materials of the said company as business employees of the victim C, a company located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon.

On May 21, 2013, the Defendant collected KRW 100,000 from D’s operation E, which is located in the area of Daejeon, and used the money for personal use, such as living expenses, at the center of the Daejeon Si, for the victim company.

From around that time to January 25, 2017, the Defendant: (a) collected money in the same way 131 times in total from the place of time in Daejeon Metropolitan City through the same method; and (b) consumed KRW 147,189,200 in total for agricultural materials stored on behalf of the victim company, as indicated in attached Table (1).

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim while on duty.

2. Although the Defendant was prohibited from selling the company’s products to an individual farmer, the Defendant deceivings the company as if he were to supply the products to the customer.