The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the facts, embezzled the attorney fees, meal expenses, and transportation expenses.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (the suspended sentence: a fine of one million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged (1) on January 28, 2013, the Defendant embezzled KRW 11,000,000 from the account under the name of the Defendant (FF and Gu number G) in which the funds of the said clan were deposited in a closed area in Seoul (hereinafter referred to as Seoul) during his/her business management to the attorney’s fee for the criminal case of occupational embezzlement (Seoul East Branch Office No. 477588).

(2) On March 12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) withdrawn KRW 11,200,000,000, which was owned by the said clan from the said account at the branch of the Suhyup Bank located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, while keeping the funds of the said clan in office; and (b) embezzled them by remitting them to the attorney-at-law at the attorney’s fee for the criminal case against the Defendant’s defense judicial violation (Seoul Central Branch Prosecutor 2013 No. 48071).

(3) On April 23, 2013, the Defendant embezzled approximately KRW 52,300 by withdrawing funds from the victim’s clans kept in the account in the name of J (K) for the purpose of preserving expenses paid by the Defendant in connection with the purchase of real estate of the said clans, as well as depositing approximately KRW 52,300,00 in the Defendant’s account, which was charged by the Defendant for embezzlement in the course of his duties at a non-permanent place of business.

B. In light of the following facts that can be recognized by the evidence of the court below, the court below held that the defendant embezzled the funds of the victim clan by using the funds of the victim clan as attorney fees, meal expenses, and transportation expenses only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

It is not sufficient to recognize the recognition.

Considering this part of the charges, the Defendant is innocent.