The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, lent the computer main body, fluor, slicker, slicker, and sirens, terminal, or cable (hereinafter “instant equipment”) to F without compensation, as the Defendant did not significantly require D schools at the time of the computer’s main body, fluor, slicker, and slicker 1 sets, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have obtained unlawful acquisition intent in the crime of embezzlement on account of the fact that the lending period did not extend.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the charged facts of this case and erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (the penalty amounting to KRW 2.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Before deciding on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor maintained the criminal facts (the occupational embezzlement) as stated in the original judgment in the first instance trial as the primary charges and applied the same contents as the statement in the column of “criminal facts” as stated in the conjunctive charges, and applied for changes in the indictment to add “occupational Breach of Trust” to “Article 356 and Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act,” respectively, under the preliminary application law, “Article 356 and Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act,” and thus, the subject of the trial against the Defendant was changed by this court’s permission. Thus, the lower court’s judgment examined and determined the contents of the original indictment cannot be maintained any more.

However, even if there exists a ground for ex officio reversal, the grounds for appeal by the defendant who asserts misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles against the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged prior to the alteration are still subject to the judgment

3. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: D schools operated by the victim educational foundation C from March 1, 2009 to February 29, 2012.