The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Of the facts charged in this case instituted for a single comprehensive crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), the court below acquitted all of the part of the embezzlement for the nominal payment of litigation costs (the part already determined and determined in the court below), found guilty by recognizing that the part of embezzlement for the early payment of expenses, the part of embezzlement for the direct payment of personnel expenses, and the part of the nominal embezzlement for the purchase price for apartment as a single crime for each disbursement of money, and found guilty of the remainder of the judgment. As long as only the defendant appealed, the part of the embezzlement for the entire embezzlement is a single comprehensive crime, and the part of the nominal embezzlement for the early payment of the purchase price for apartment, and found guilty of the remainder of the judgment. As such, the part of the acquittal for the reasoning in the judgment of the court below is deemed to have been exempted from the object of public defense among the parties. Accordingly, the decision of the court below should be followed with the conclusion of innocence, and ultimately, the scope of the judgment on the part of embezzlement for the nominal payment for the purchase price for apartment shall not be justified (the grounds for appeal).

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Part of occupational embezzlement under the pretext of early payment and the victim company and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

(2) Although the injured company cannot be deemed to have agreed to pay only the amount actually received from the guests to the F, the lower court determined that the exceeding the above amount constituted embezzlement and found the Defendant guilty of part of the facts charged. Of the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles regarding the aforementioned guilty portion. 2) The lower court’s portion of the occupational embezzlement in lieu of personnel expenses, without any grounds, is the amount of embezzlement.