The judgment below

Among the occupational embezzlement of the guilty part and the innocent part, the number 1.67 and 104 of the list of crimes in attached Form 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the part found guilty of occupational misunderstanding of facts, Defendant 1’s act of using a corporate card constitutes occupational breach of trust, since the Defendant impliedly agreed on the use of the victim F, victim G and the corporate card, and the victims have also settled the living cost by using the corporate card. Thus, Defendant’s act of using the corporate card cannot be deemed as a occupational breach of trust.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty without recognizing it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and two times of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the embezzlement of occupational embezzlement (not guilty) of the Defendant’s wife, the Defendant did not enter F and G in the first use of the Defendant’s wife S account for and settlement in the form of preservation. The Defendant had an account under the name of the Victim Corporation I (hereinafter “I”) and the Victim J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”) and a corporate card, so there was no need to spend the company’s expense from the account under the name of his family and settle it with the company’s profits. It is not possible to permit the Defendant to use the company’s funds for purposes not related to the company’s business (attached Form 1: 1: 74, 80 through 102, 140, 140, 141). The Defendant was only the Defendant’s corporate card with an overseas business trip against the Defendant, and there was no need to additionally withdraw the company’s funds from the account established by J to 300,000,000).