The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination (the part concerning the crime of occupational embezzlement in the original judgment);

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is the same from April 1, 2011 to the Defendant.

9. By the end of 30.30, the victim C and Daegu Suwon-gu D decided to operate a job placement service with no trade name.

On March 22, 2011, the Defendant, at the above job placement office, received KRW 20 million as office operating expenses from the victim and embezzled the victim by arbitrarily consuming his/her debt repayment and living expenses at the KRW 20 million from the time of his/her around, and then embezzled by arbitrarily consuming KRW 58,00,000 as shown in the separate crime list from around the time of his/her around May 6, 201.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

C. We examine ex officio the decision of the court of first instance. Article 746 of the Civil Act provides that "no person who provided property or provided labor for an illegal cause shall claim the return of such profit," provides that "the person who provided the benefit cannot claim the return of the benefit, on the ground that the act of the cause is null and void by law." Since the ownership of the goods provided is the one who provided the benefit cannot claim the return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the act of the cause is deemed null and void by law, the ownership of the goods provided eventually belongs to the other party who received the benefit. Thus, if a juristic act which caused the benefit becomes null and void against good morals and other social order, the ownership of the benefit belongs to the other party, and even if the benefit recipient voluntarily consumed it, it cannot be deemed as "the other party's property," and thus, the crime of embezzlement is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do275, Jun. 11,