1. The guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The original court.

1. Of the instant facts charged, the lower court rendered a judgment of conviction as to the embezzlement of business among the facts charged in the instant case, and the lower court’s ancillary facts in the instant case 2012 Gohap732 and 2011 (combined). In so doing, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of fraud among the primary facts charged in the instant case and the primary facts charged in the instant case 2012 Gohap811 (Consolidated).

Accordingly, the prosecutor first-B of the facts charged among the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below.

On the ground of an erroneous determination of facts as to the remaining part except for the fraud of this paragraph, the Defendant filed an appeal on the ground of an erroneous determination of facts as to the occupational embezzlement among the guilty part of the judgment below.

On the other hand, Article 1-B of the primary facts charged in the case where the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

It is the primary charge of occupational embezzlement that is found guilty.

The part shall be deemed to have been exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties as the prosecutor did not appeal. As such, this part shall be determined by the conclusion of the judgment of the court below and shall not be judged again.

Ultimately, the scope of this Court's adjudication is set forth in 1-B among the primary facts charged in the case of 2012 Gohap811, which was found not guilty by the lower court.

excluding the fraud of this subsection, the remainder shall be limited.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: Around November 2009, the Defendant purchased KRW 4,870 for each 77,00 device from the M father of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “victim Co., Ltd. in the case of a victim of the pertinent facts charged; and, otherwise, hereinafter referred to as “H”), the Defendant purchased KRW 4,870 for each 7,00 device.

Therefore, the defendant is entrusted with the sale of the cargo terminal by the victim company.