The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, when remitting funds from the Victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim E”) to G, obtained the consent of the representative director F of the Victim E Co., Ltd. at the time of transfer.

B. In the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant did not have the status of a custodian who manages the deposits of the victim company because the F is in charge of the fund management of the victim company.

In addition, the defendant transferred the funds of the victim company G in lieu of receiving the claims for provisional collection against the victim company, so the defendant did not have any intention to obtain unlawful profits.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that KRW 100 million out of the victim’s deposit was remitted to G account under the name of G, as stated in the facts charged, to pay the purchase price of shares to H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) without the F’s consent. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

1) The F stated that he may not know the remittance as stated in the facts charged, and that he did not receive a report from or consult with the Defendant in connection with the remittance. Such F’s statement not only is concrete, but also is consistent from the investigation agency to the trial court. On the contrary, the Defendant asserts that the above remittance was returned to the investigative agency, or that the Defendant was paid the money in advance to K at the office rent of the victim company, and that it was false based on relevant evidence.