All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts claimed the collection of KRW 163,975,53, which the Defendant benefiting from the crime of occupational embezzlement of this case, in accordance with the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation and Restoration of Corruption Property (hereinafter “Corruption Property Confiscation Act”).

Nevertheless, the court below did not order the collection on the ground that the victim does not constitute cases where it is extremely difficult to recover damage, such as the victim is unable to exercise his/her right to claim the return of property or the right to claim the damages against the offender.

In so determining, the lower court erred and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact of the requirements for the additional collection order under the Act on the Confiscation of Decomposed Property

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

B. The above punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of facts (related to the requirements for additional collection based on the Corruption Property Confiscation Act)

A. Of the criminal facts in the instant case, the prosecutor’s claim for the collection of additional charges in KRW 163,975,533 (hereinafter “property subject to the claim for the collection of additional charges”) should be additionally collected pursuant to Articles 6(1), 5(1), and 3(1) of the Act on the Confiscation of Decomposed Property.

B. The summary of the judgment of the court below is that the property claimed for additional collection constitutes the property damaged by crime under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Confiscation of Decomposed Property.

However, even in cases where property damaged by a crime is confiscated or collected pursuant to Article 6 of the Act on the Confiscation of Decomposed Property, such confiscation or collection is likely to infringe on the property rights of a crime victim whose legal interest is protected, and the money collected through the above provision may rather be delayed due to the relationship to be returned to the victim through a separate procedure. Therefore, it is possible to recover the damage to the crime victim.