The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, KRW 170,853,090, the amount of embezzlement damage amounting to KRW 170,853,090 should be offset against the Defendant by the total amount of KRW 70,000,000,000 from April 2010 to February 2012.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the intention of unlawful acquisition in embezzlement refers to the intention to dispose of the property of another person in violation of his/her duty for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, such as his/her own property, and there is an intention to return, compensate, and preserve it later.

Even if there is no difficulty in recognizing the intent of illegal acquisition, and it does not require that the amount of compensation or preservation after such fact be deducted from the amount of embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3399, May 27, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court, the defendant did not transfer the amount to the victim within a reasonable period from the date when he received the telephone fee from the customer as stated in the attached crime list among the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, and used it for living expenses or direct operation expenses, etc., and as such, the fact that the amount used for living expenses or direct operation expenses, etc. while the defendant kept in custody on duty is 170,853,090 won in total, and that part of it was returned after a considerable period of time after the defendant committed the crime as above pursuant to the above legal principles.

In full view of the fact that the defendant's money to be settled by a separate obligation from the victim does not affect the recognition of the amount of embezzlement damage, the above facts constituting the crime are stated.