The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) An account in the name of F as stated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant account”) in the crime of embezzlement as indicated in the judgment of the court below was mixed with the Defendant’s personal funds, and B also accepted the Defendant’s comprehensive consent with the knowledge that a part of the instant account was used for an individual purpose. Thus, even if the Defendant temporarily used some of the funds for an individual purpose, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the intent to acquire

B) The Defendant, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, committed the fabrication of each private document and the uttering of a falsified document, shall be the victim company or the “instant company” as indicated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below.

B entrusted management for a certain period, and B provided the name of the representative director via E, who is the spouse, and provided the Defendant with a comprehensive prior approval on the use of corporate sense. Accordingly, the Defendant does not constitute the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering of the said investigation document. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (two years of suspension of execution) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The Defendant paid KRW 10,00,000 deposited on May 25, 2016 and KRW 30,000,00 deposited on July 6, 2016, and the Defendant’s personal use of the money in this case’s account thereafter constitutes a new embezzlement. 2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable because it is too unreasonable to impose an unfair sentencing sentence.

2. Judgment on the crime of embezzlement in the judgment below

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, around December 2015, purchased and jointly operated the victim company located in the Dong Chang-gu, Seoul, and the Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, and the 3rd floor, and agreed to distribute the profits therefrom to 5:5, and subsequently, acquired the victim company pursuant to the above business agreement and jointly operated with B, and managed the external business and restaurant.