The judgment below

The guilty portion against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

The judgment below

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant had invested more than KRW 420 million of personal funds in the process of acquiring and selling the instant industrial site, and thus, cannot be said to constitute embezzlement, and there was no Defendant’s intent to illegally obtain the said land.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are not merely a part of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant industrial site, but actively participated in the Plaintiff’s sale of the instant industrial site. As such, it can be sufficiently recognized that the instant facts charged were of violation of the Act on the Promotion of Industrial Cluster and Establishment of Factories.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to a joint principal offender, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence that the court below sentenced too much to be sentenced is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the Defendant’s facts was accepted in the court below, and the court below convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the basis of the Defendant’s confession, etc.

2) In light of the legal principles related to the deliberation of the party and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendant’s embezzlement of KRW 403,00,000, which was kept by the victim H for the purpose of the victim H, is recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, it is true.