The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that Defendant used most of the cash cash cashed by its employees as wages, accounts receivable to customers, child support, etc., and there was no benefit, the sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Public prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of legal principles (the portion of innocence: D related balance sold on March 14, 2017 and not remitted to the account) where it is difficult to trace funds even if the Defendant received the balance of the real estate sale price by a check. Thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles that acquitted the Defendant for the remaining portion of the balance paid by the check, although it is deemed as concealed and omitted property. 2) In light of the amount of the property concealed and omitted by the Defendant, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

With respect to the part of the facts charged which the court below judged as not guilty on the part of the facts charged (the summary of this part of the facts charged on March 1, 2009), the prosecutor shall maintain the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged and applied for the amendment of the indictment as stated below (the conjunctive facts added at the court below) and added the part which the court below found guilty on the purchase price of D Apartment E in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si as the preliminary facts charged. However, the above part is identical to the primary facts charged, and thus, it is interpreted that the part which the court below found not guilty on the part of the facts charged is identical to the ancillary facts

This Court permitted this.

As the subject of the judgment of the court was changed, the judgment of the court can no longer be maintained.

However, regardless of the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's primary facts charged.