The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

The facts charged of this case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant (1) did not state Article 356 of the Criminal Act in the indictment on the part of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) but did not state in the indictment on the part of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement). Although Defendant (1) was indicted for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) by simple embezzlement, not occupational embezzlement, by failing to state in the indictment on the embezzlement, the court below convicted Defendant of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) by stating Article 356 of the Criminal Act in applying

(2) 사실 오인 및 법리 오해 ㈎ 자본시장과 금융투자 업에 관한 법률위반 부분 피고인이 타인의 자금을 위탁 받아 주식투자를 한 행위는 투자자 별로 구분하지 않고 운용하는 등 자본시장과 금융투자 업에 관한 법률( 이하 ‘ 자본 시장법’ 이라 한다 )에서 정한 ‘ 투자 일 임업’ 의 요건을 갖추지 못하였으므로, 피고인은 무등록으로 ‘ 투자 일 임업’ 을 영위한 것이 아니다.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the interpretation of the concept and requirements of “investment forestry” under the Capital Market Act, thereby engaging in the Defendant’s non-registered forestry.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty.

㈏ 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률위반( 횡령) 부분 피해자 G 주식회사( 이하 ‘ 주식회사’ 는 생략하고 ‘G ’라고만 한다, 다른 회사의 경우도 ‘ 주식회사’ 는 생략하고 기재한다) 와 피해자 H이 피고인에게 송금한 돈은 피고인이 운영하던

To assist the operation of E, the nature of the money is a loan borrowed by the defendant for consumption or loan, or there is ownership of the defendant.

As such, the defendant is in the status of keeping the victim's money.

shall not be deemed to have been approved.