1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant used the original intent without obtaining prior consent while keeping the original intent owned by the victim, but the employees of the Defendant used it as the victim’s original intent, and did not so.

Even if the victim had already recommended the defendant to purchase the original will, after the employee of the defendant's person disposed of the original will, E, at the defendant's request, has already purchased the original will, and eventually, the defendant had the intention to acquire the original will.

Although it cannot be readily determined, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the fact.

2) The Defendant, regardless of his/her own duties, was in custody in a company run by himself/herself, and thus, he/she cannot be kept in custody for business purposes.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination (Judgment as to the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles)

A. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion that there is no intent to obtain unlawful acquisition 1) The intent to obtain unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement is expressed in the relevant legal doctrine.

The term "an intention to dispose of the property of another person in violation of his/her duty for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party, such as his/her own property, and even if there is an intention to return, compensate, or preserve it later, there is no difficulty in recognizing the intention of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do3399, May 27, 2010; 201Do14247, Jan. 27, 2012).2) Specific determination is that the Defendant used the property of the defendant's employee as the victim's original death.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the court below through legitimate investigations, are significant in the size of the factory operated by the defendant.