The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In the case of occupational embezzlement as stated in the judgment of the court below among the facts constituting a misunderstanding of facts, since the amount which the defendant was unable to pay credit amount from the actual transaction partner is about KRW 100 million, the amount obtained by deducting the above KRW 100 million from the amount of embezzlement as stated in the attached Table 2 (2) of the judgment of the court below shall be deemed as the amount of embezzlement, it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below that recognized the whole amount not deposited as credit payment to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "D") as the amount of embezzlement and affected the conclusion

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below are as follows: ① from 2005 to D business division, the defendant was in charge of supplying and collecting processed meat products; ② the defendant deposited only part of the amount after receiving credit from the customer, and used it for personal purposes; ③ The amount of embezzlement as shown in the attached Table 2 (2) of the judgment of the court below is calculated by deducting the amount deposited by P from the amount deposited by the actual customer from the amount deposited by the actual customer based on the details of deposits in the corporate account, sales commission account book, transaction ledger, transaction statement, etc. (Article 287 of the evidence record No. 6 of the evidence record No. 1983; No. 535 of the above record No. 6 of the record; ④ the defendant was also in charge of supplying and collecting processed meat products; and ③ the amount calculated by the defendant's prosecutor as stated in the attached Table 2 (2) of the court below's decision; and ③ the amount calculated by the above No. 160 (3).1).