1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months;

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The court below found the defendant guilty of 304,312,250 won among the facts charged against the defendant due to occupational embezzlement due to the subsidization of the construction cost (the crime of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement). The court below found the defendant guilty of 1.17 billion won among the facts of violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) due to the war and other subsidization of operating expenses (the crime of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes)

On the judgment of the court below, only the defendant filed an appeal against the guilty portion, and the prosecutor did not file an appeal. In such a case, according to the principle of no appeal, the acquittal portion for the reason is also transferred to the appellate court along with the guilty portion. However, since the acquittal portion for the reason has already been excluded from the object of the attack and defense between the parties, this part cannot be re-determined by the court.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004). Accordingly, the lower court’s conclusion with respect to the part not guilty on the grounds is followed, and no judgment is separately made thereon.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Each document submitted by the defendant and his/her defense counsel after the deadline for submitting grounds for appeal shall be deemed within the scope of supplement in case of supplement in the grounds for appeal.

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles concerning occupational embezzlement due to misunderstanding of facts and subsidization of construction cost [A crime of Article 1 of the original judgment] is omitted when the defendant enters the name of the victim B or below corporation, the indication "stock company" is omitted.

(hereinafter referred to as "victim company") contracted interior works, etc. necessary for the operation of the hospital in the course of negotiations with AS in which Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and D (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") intends to lease the building of the third and nine floors above ground in Gangdong-gu and D for the purpose of a convalescent hospital, and the defendant himself.