The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the crime of occupational embezzlement is established.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) As to occupational embezzlement, the Defendant and E are “victim Company D” (hereinafter “victim Company”).

F Co., Ltd. under the name of F (hereinafter “F”).

(2) It is doubtful whether K’s representative director of the victim company was authorized at the time of borrowing KRW 30 million from F. Moreover, the defendant was paid KRW 20 million out of the 30 million borrowed from F as the repayment of expenses incurred for the victim company, and at that time, the victim company’s shareholders were only the defendant and E, but the defendant used KRW 20 million and KRW 10 million respectively, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had a custodian’s status or an intent of unlawful acquisition. 2) As to occupational breach of trust, the defendant did not intend to manage another’s business on April 8, 2012, since he borrowed the patent right from N as collateral, at the time of borrowing, the defendant did not have any obligation to manage the above business as a joint business agreement between the defendant and the person’s company on April 8, 2012.

In addition, the defendant's 85 million won borrowed from N is subject to the partnership agreement between N, and it cannot be deemed that the damage was incurred to the partnership due to the partnership agreement between April 8, 2012.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1 Recognition of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is made.