The judgment below

The guilty part (including the acquittal part of the reason) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (De fact-finding, mistake of unfair sentencing) 1) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) (1) The Defendant sold the instant multi-household house to the victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “the registration of ownership transfer”) in accordance with the resolution of the board of directors in order to promote the prompt sale of multi-household housing located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu D land (hereinafter “multi-household housing”) (hereinafter “the instant multi-household housing”). Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have the intention of breach of trust.

(2) Since the Defendant’s husband and the Defendant raised all funds necessary for the acquisition of the land in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”) and the construction of the instant multi-household, the damaged company merely acquired and disposed of the ownership of the instant land and multi-household housing without any particular contribution, as it purchased the instant multi-household housing from the victimized company and acquired the liabilities of the victimized company amounting to KRW 2.65 million, the appropriate purchase price can be deemed to have been paid. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s act of selling multi-household housing in this case as shown in the lower judgment is invalid, if the Defendant’s act of selling multi-household housing in this case is deemed to constitute a director’s trade or abuse of power of representation, the Defendant’s act does not have any damage to the victimized company due to the Defendant’s act of selling multi-household housing in this case.

B. Since the Defendant was not paid benefits after he was appointed as the representative director of the victimized company, part of the benefits was substituted by the use of the corporate card after the resolution of the board of directors. Therefore, there was no intention of breach of trust and damage to the victimized company.