All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (as to the number Nos. 4 through 10 in the annexed crime list as indicated in the judgment of the court below) the court below found the defendant guilty as to the amount Nos. 4 through 10 in the annexed crime list (hereinafter “crime list”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below. ① Since the amount of KRW 19,80,000 received from K is the personal money of the defendant, the crime of embezzlement cannot be established as to the amount Nos. 4 through 10 in the list of crimes committed within the scope of the amount, and ② Since L actually worked as an employee of the Dong company of this case, its insurance premium disbursement (crime No. 5 in the list of crimes) cannot be deemed as embezzlement, and since M& car under the name of the defendant was used for the Dong company of this case, it cannot be deemed as embezzlement for the settlement of the insurance premium (crime No. 6 in the list of crimes).

③ Also, the credit card use price of the credit card Nos. 7 through 10 is also used for the Dong company of this case.

④ All of the above expenditures have been ratified by the victims since then.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the charge of embezzlement on the ground that the amount of KRW 52,00, No. 3 of the crime sight table No. 552,00, out of the amount the Defendant spent by the Defendant, is not related to the instant trade agreement, and thus, should be recognized as embezzlement. In so determining, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the judgment of the lower court.

The punishment of the lower court (one million won in penalty) that is unfair in sentencing is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

In the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of the facts, the Defendant alleged the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court alleged that the Defendant’s assertion and determination thereof (i.e., the Defendant received KRW 19.8 million from K Co., Ltd.) belonged to the Defendant’s property.

It is reasonable to see it.