The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1’s occupational embezzlement used KRW 14,00,000 for a representative meeting of D Management Division, and thus, the lower court did not have any intention to obtain unlawful acquisition, thereby misunderstanding the facts, thereby making a mistake of finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B) On October 10, 2012, with respect to the occupational breach of trust of KRW 980,000,000, the Defendant’s deduction of KRW 70,000 from KRW 70,000,000, which was remitted from E.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E.”), is consistent with the Defendant’s deduction of KRW 980,00,000 from KRW 70,000, which was remitted from E.S. (hereinafter “E.”), for the purpose of the reorganization of accounts, it is inevitable for the reorganization of accounts, and there is no further loss on the part of the Defendant by obtaining KRW 1,458,485 as interest on KRW 41,00,00.

(2) With regard to the breach of trust in relation to the payment of health insurance premiums, the head of E pre-management office will pay health insurance premiums on behalf of the Defendant’s mother.

The defendant was believed to be the defendant, and there was no intention to pay the above health insurance premium at the management expense of the representative meeting.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant embezzled KRW 41,00,000 out of KRW 70,000,000, which was under custody in the course of business for a representative meeting of the victim D management group with intent to obtain unlawful acquisition.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal related to occupational embezzlement

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the representative of the representative meeting of the D Management Group for Interest Victims of D Building in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, engaged in the management and non-collection and management of officetels and commercial building owners, and the performance of litigation representing the said owners.

(b) the injured party.