All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, hearing failure) 1) In order to prevent the illegal withdrawal of D’s funds by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim company”) as indicated in the lower judgment, the Defendant established E with the consent of D in order to raise the cost of relocating the factory site of the victimized company.

In fact, the defendant invested in the fund for the purpose of creating the cost of transferring the factory site of the damaged company after transferring the funds of the damaged company to E account, or used only for the damaged company such as E management cost, processing cost of the transaction company, expenses for the officers and employees of the victimized company, and not for the personal purpose. Thus, the defendant did not have an intent to acquire illegal profits.

2) The amount of KRW 250 million and KRW 300 million withdrawn by the Defendant related to Articles 2 and 3 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below was repaid to the damaged company under the name of D. It was not known that D did not participate in the establishment and operation of the victimized company and calculated the claim for provisional collection. The actual creditor of the above claim is the Defendant, who is the actual representative director (representative) of the victimized company.

B. The Defendant invested the above KRW 250 million in the Fund with a view to using it in transferring the factory site of the victimized Company, and was the spouse.

Since the defendant agreed to receive the above KRW 300 million through the division of property while divorced with D, embezzlement is not established.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) sentence of the lower court (three years of the suspended sentence of two-year imprisonment) is too unhutiled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, and failure to examine, the lower court also asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal under this part of the facts constituting the crime No. 1 of the lower judgment. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as stated in Article 1(1) of the “Judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’