The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a case where misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Co., Ltd. I (former trade name before the change: J. hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) acquired the name of W, Q, R, etc. (hereinafter “W, etc.”), and W, etc. embezzled or embezzled V’s property or conducted a breach of trust. Accordingly, the Defendant paid KRW 66 million at the attorney’s expense for securing investigation records, etc.

Therefore, since this is for the benefit of the victim company, there was an intention of the defendant's illegal acquisition as to the No. 3 of the crime list attached to the judgment below.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant alleged that this part of the appeal was the same as the grounds for appeal, but the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

2) If the representative director of a corporation with the judgment of the political party withdraws and uses the company's money, and fails to present evidentiary documents as to the reason for withdrawal and the source of use, and fails to provide reasonable explanation to obtain the money, such money may be presumed to have withdrawn the company's money with the intent of unlawful acquisition and used it for personal purposes (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9250, Mar. 27, 2008). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the above legal principles, the defendant can be fully recognized that there was the fact of embezzlement, such as the crime list Nos. 3 attached to the judgment of the court below, and there was an intention of unlawful acquisition. Thus, there is some inappropriate part in the reasoning of the court below.