All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant contract of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is not concluded through the advertisement made by the victimized company or the support of the business affairs of the victimized company, but was concluded with the endeavor of the Defendants, and thus, it does not constitute embezzlement, and the Defendants did not have any awareness of illegality.

The judgment of the court below that recognized the Defendants as occupational embezzlement is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s punishment on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the damaged company is a company engaged in real estate consulting, brokerage, etc., and subsidized certain business expenses to its employees, and conducted promotional activities such as management of the homepage, Internet advertising expenses, leaflet production, etc., employees of the victimized company, after securing an on-site answer to each part of the affected company, and securing a copy of the unit, and then affixing the photograph on the company website. If the purchaser wishing to report the photograph appears, the company has conducted the work such as allowing the purchase contract to enter into the contract at the site. Upon the conclusion of the contract, the company's management of the contract at the site and distributing the balance to the company and profits after paying the balance. Defendant A used the office of team leader, Defendant B, and director of the victimized company at the site. The damaged company's employees visit the affected company to the customer at the site of E-gu Seoul, which appears to have been at the time of education for the customer.