The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the facts charged in this case, the court below found the victim company guilty as to the embezzlement of occupational embezzlement based on the crime list (1) attached to the court below's judgment, and found the defendant not guilty as to the embezzlement based on the crime list (2) attached to the court below's judgment, which is a single comprehensive crime. The non-guilty part of the grounds for which the prosecutor did not appeal after only the defendant appealed is excluded from the object of the attack and defense between the parties, and in fact leaves from the object of the trial. Thus, the court below's conclusion of innocence as to this part of the facts charged in this case shall not be followed and the court below shall not re-decided again.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. 1) The amount transferred from the victim company to the account of this case in the name of D is only owned by D, but is not an extra fund of the victim company, since the amount transferred from the victim company to the account of this case in the name of D, it is merely owned by D, the representative director of the victim company is not an extra fund of the victim company. Thus, the defendant is in the status of keeping the money owned by the victim company, and he

subsection (b) of this section.

2) Even if the amount transferred to the instant account by the victim’s extra loan to the victim’s company, KRW 50,000,000,000, which was transferred to K at the end of 45 times in the table of crime shown in the attached Table of the lower judgment, was paid by the Defendant to K in the instant account to promote pharmaceutical wholesale business in Busan, and is a cost to expand the business territory of the victim C (C). Thus, there was no intention to obtain unlawful profits from the Defendant.

3) Nevertheless, the court below found all of the facts charged guilty. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, etc. 1) The Defendant, including the existence of a custodian in the line of duty, is also erroneous in the lower judgment.