The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to meet the delivery volume, the Defendant had no choice but to sell goods in the form of dumping at a lower price at the existing or new trading office, but did not have embezzled the price of goods itself, the lower court convicted the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on embezzlement or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: “The Defendant, from around December 1, 2010 to around November 5, 2011, has been engaged in the business of supplying and collecting goods of the said company as a member of the C&A company located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. Around May 10, 201, the Defendant collected five million won from the wholesaler company located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and has been engaged in the business of selling and collecting goods for the said company. The Defendant embezzled the goods of the victim by arbitrarily consuming the price of goods for the said company as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, including: (a) spent the goods for personal use, such as entertainment and living expenses, at that time; and (b) consumed the said goods for the said company for the said company.”

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the Defendant’s confession statement at the lower court court, D’s police statements, credit inventory inspection table, business day table, credit sales shortage statement, sales products management table, and the sales inventory inspection table, etc. were admitted as evidence.

C. 1) The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial, and the finding of guilt should be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act), so the same shall apply.