The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In relation to the crime of occupational breach of trust, the Defendant did not use the corporate card in relation to the business affairs of the school juristic person D, but did not use it for personal purposes. Thus, there is no responsibility for the crime of occupational breach of trust in relation to the use of the above corporate card. 2) In relation to the crime of occupational embezzlement, the Defendant received benefits according to the salary class defined by the standards for the conversion rate of general employees of the school juristic person D on March 1, 2004, and thus, it does not constitute

3) Since the Defendant actually performed the pipeline construction of buildings D and paid the construction cost, the act of remitting the said construction cost from the above school juristic person does not constitute fraud. B. The Prosecutor’s sentence imposed by the lower court (one-month imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the charge of occupational breach of trust part 1) The Defendant, from September 16, 2003, was using the victim’s corporate card while working as the founder E of the victim’s educational foundation D, and from September 16, 2003, he was actually in charge of overall affairs, such as the administration and management of the victim. The corporate card can be used only in cases where it is necessary with respect to the business of the victim, such as purchase of goods, internal contact, employee conference, etc., and should not be used for personal purposes. The Defendant, around January 13, 2006, she arbitrarily settled 490,000 won from the “G” entertainment tavern located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, and used it for entertainment expenses by using the corporate card. In addition, the Defendant, regardless of its duty, from that time, the Defendant was using the victim’s corporate food table (1-28 to April 13, 2011) as an entertainment bar for business purposes, such as the victim’s card.