1. The guilty portion of the judgment below shall be reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months;

3.Provided, That this judgment shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant D (hereinafter “victim D”) with regard to mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the guilty portion

(E) A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim E”) and, in compliance with the above two companies, “victim E” means “victim E”.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months in prison) is too unreasonable, because it is so unreasonable that each of the victimized companies’ respective accounts was transferred from one’s husband to another’s account under the name of the Defendant, not by embezzlement, but by embezzlement. Each transferred money is not a fund of the victimized company, but a fund of F’s individual.

B. Prosecutor 1) Since misunderstanding of facts as to the acquitted portion 1) a victim E borrowed and kept a passbook in the name of the passbook deposited by R, the Defendant’s withdrawal from the account in the name of R 207,007,000 shall be regarded as the victim E’s corporate capital. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant was in charge of the fund management as a financial director from the victimized company until October 23, 2018; (b) around October 23, 2018, the Defendant transferred the funds of each of the above companies to its own account and did not attend the company; and (c) transferred them to the company at the residence where the Defendant lived with F; (b) if the Defendant was in the part of his business, it is difficult to obtain the reasons for the transfer of the funds to the Defendant’s passbook via the F’s personal account; and (c) unlike the case where the funds can be deemed still under the company’s management, the instant case was transferred to the Defendant’s account with the intent of arbitrarily disposing of the company funds for private use; and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s unlawful acquisition intent cannot be denied.