The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The judgment below

part of acquittal.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles (A) misunderstanding of the Commercial Act, and misunderstanding of public electronic records, etc., and the Defendant employed the establishment work of K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) to X, and X was requested to a certified judicial scrivener office by taking X as a practical person.

In addition, in relation to the establishment of K, the Defendant did not instruct X and W on illegal matters such as the most payment, or did not receive a report on illegal matters from them.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the false entry and the event of an electronic record, such as the violation of the Commercial Act and the electronic record of the most advanced payment, among the facts charged in this case, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting

(B) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is proved that the Defendant embezzled the funds of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) with intent to obtain unlawful acquisition by settling the credit card price used for personal purposes with the company’s funds, or incurred damage by using G’s corporate credit card for personal purposes in violation of his/her duties.

Rather, the re-statement of the lower court’s crime / [1] Re-statement of the lower court’s crime was merely a settlement of the Defendant’s personal expenditure with the company’s funds by mistake or mistake, and the Defendant did not actually examine the written decision on expenditure.

In addition, since Y, who is an officer in charge of one accounting, has a certificate of G’s corporate account accreditation, the Defendant was in the position of custodian of G Fund.

subsection (b) of this section.

However, since the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational embezzlement and the burden of proof of breach of trust, or by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

(c).