The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had a claim against the victimized company at the time of the act of embezzlement in this case, on the following grounds: (a) the amount of embezzlement of a separate occupational embezzlement (the Jeonju District Court 2013Da2830, 2015Ma163 (Merger)) that embezzled the money of the victimized company; and (b) the Defendant remitted the amount exceeding the amount of damage of the crime of occupational embezzlement in this case from the account in the name of G to the account of the victimized company after the crime; and (c) the lower court erred by mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) If a representative director does not appropriate the money owned by the company for the repayment of his/her claim against the company, but uses it voluntarily for his/her personal purpose based on the intent of unlawful acquisition, it constitutes an occupational embezzlement; and (b) in such a case, the representative director does not change solely on the ground that he/she has a claim against the company or an individual claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9627, Jul. 14, 201). In addition, even if the representative director of the company asserts that he/she voluntarily withdraws and uses large amount of company funds, without undergoing lawful procedures such as interest or maturity agreement, and resolution of the board of directors, are different from lending and disposing of funds for the company’s private purpose by taking advantage of the status of the representative director, etc., and thus, constitutes embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1604, Sept. 6, 2007). 2).