The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In fact, misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (No. 1 and No. 2) the limited partnership C (hereinafter referred to as "victim company") whose representative is the defendant is a limited partnership company (hereinafter referred to as "victim company") and the defendant has lawfully managed accounting at the time and withdrawn the money. If there is a person to recognize provisional payment, it is not necessary to separately conclude an agreement on the interest or the repayment period, and all members at the time agreed to the agreement.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of occupational embezzlement as to this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., circumstances acknowledged by these evidence, i., ① the amount indicated in No. 1 and No. 2 of the List of Offenses 1 and No. 2, was immediately transferred from the corporate account due to personal needs to the Defendant’s children, and immediately transferred the money to the Defendant’s children; ② the KRW 50 million listed in No. 1 of the List of Offenses 2 was withdrawn on October 26, 2011, and was accounts as provisional payment. However, even after the withdrawal of the investigation by the complainant, the Defendant did not fully repay the money by 2017, ③ the Defendant did not know the damaged company’s members when executing the amount stated in the facts charged of this case, and ④ the Defendant stated to the effect that there was no notification or consent of the victimized company’s members when the Defendant arbitrarily abused his representative status in order to use the money for the victimized company.