The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, this judgment is delivered to the defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1 of the misapprehension of the legal principle uses the amount equivalent to KRW 240 million of the company’s non-financing as Defendant A’s retirement consolation money, and there is no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition. 2) The punishment imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (each fine of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the Prosecutor by the lower court to the Defendants is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although Defendant A has contributed much to the growth of the victim company as stated in the judgment of the court below regarding the Defendants’ assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, considering the following circumstances in light of the circumstances in the court below’s reasoning, it is not reasonable for Defendant A to receive a large amount of retirement consolation benefits exceeding KRW 240 million in addition to statutory retirement allowances and retirement consolation benefits exceeding KRW 100 million, and it is difficult to view that Defendant A has received a large amount of retirement consolation benefits exceeding KRW 240

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

① Although the victim’s general managing director J’s partial refund amounting to KRW 200 million was difficult to deposit to the account in the name of the company normally, it is not difficult to keep the remainder of the proceeds from the sale of scrap metal, the proceeds from the sale of K products, and the proceeds from convenience stores in a normal manner to account in the company’s name.

② In addition, Defendant A stated that the funds he was in his custody should be used as a loan of full-time fund (Evidence No. 137 pages). In the case of employee retirement consolation fund, Defendant A paid KRW 100 million to Defendant A.

Although it is possible to conduct a normal settlement of accounts, Defendant A suggested that Defendant A should use the funds he/she was in custody as his/her retirement consolation money, not for the above purpose.

(3) Defendant A was an employee who is not an executive of the victim company, and is commissioned as an adviser even if an executive of the victim company is dismissed.