The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years and a fine of one hundred million won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

A. 1) With respect to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (Embezzlement), the victim D corporation does not delegate to the defendant the disposal of the victim's assets, the collection of claims, and the custody of the money received through the collection of claims, but the victim's claim group (hereinafter "claim group").

(C) In order to repay the debt to the creditor, the creditor transferred all of the assets of the victim to the creditor group and disposed of them (However, the proxy was prepared by indicating that the Defendant Company B (hereinafter referred to as “B”) who is the representative of the creditor group is a mandatory agent, and transferred the assets of the victim to C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) and disposed of.

[2] The Defendant, as the representative of the claim group, only carried out the business of distributing the money that the claim group received from the victim by disposing of the assets acquired from the victim to the creditors who form the claim group, and did not have the status of custody for the victim. 2) The sum of the amount of the claim against the victim by the claim group exceeds the amount of the money received by the Defendant through the victim’s disposal of assets, etc., and there was no amount returned to the victim by the claim group, and thus, the Defendant did not incur embezzlement damage

3) Although the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the amount of profit under Article 3 of the Specific Economic Crimes Act, the court below acknowledged that the defendant embezzled the money as stated in the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant used the money received by the defendant for the victim by disposing of the victim's assets in violation of the principle of burden of proof.