All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing) did not enter into a partnership agreement with the victim F to distribute profits to 50%, and even according to the victim’s statement, the victim merely owns the proceeds, and even if the Defendant refuses to return the proceeds, the crime of embezzlement is not established even if the Defendant refuses to do so. Even if the Defendant was guilty.

Even if the actual proceeds from the sea ginseng farming are 11,711,078 won (=26,527,481 won as stated in the facts charged - depreciation cost of 14,816,103 won). The sentence of the lower court (6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The judgment of the court below (1) The defendant was in charge of technical guidance for the production of marine seedlings

G 과의 사이에 월급으로 200만 원을, 생산 수당으로 연봉 4,000만 원 범위 내에서 1,000% 까지를 지급하기로 하는 근로 계약서를 작성한 바 있고, G에게 해삼 양식에 따른 수익의 50%를 지급하기로 약정한 사실을 인정하면서도 G 에게 수익금을 지급하지 않고 있는 점, ② 피고인이 검찰에서 “ 피해 자가 양식장에 와서 G의 일을 도와주었고, 피해자에게 해삼 종묘 생산에 필요한 사료, 뻘, 해삼 집 등을 구입해 달라고 부탁한 적이 있다.

"A statement was made to the effect that "..... (3) the defendant was investigated as a suspected case of violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act, and the police had "the victim purchased the sea crynas around June 2016, and had ever done so."

G and the victim were employed as an employee by introducing G, which is an aquaculture engineer, and even though the victim was not directly employed as an employee, the victim was able to do so, and both the mixing of eating and drinking are G and the victim.