The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

misunderstanding of facts: Of the facts charged in the instant case, it is difficult for the victim, etc. to have made a statement as to the occupational embezzlement of KRW 120 million in co-investment funds, and it is therefore used under the consent or understanding of the victim, and thus there is no intention of illegal acquisition or embezzlement, the lower court found the above facts guilty, notwithstanding that there is no intention of illegal acquisition or embezzlement.

Unfair sentencing: The lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

In the instant facts charged, the lower court acquitted all of the Defendants on the charge of occupational embezzlement of KRW 72,102,550 in business income, occupational breach of trust of KRW 28,925,707 in the use of a corporate card, and [2015 senior group 1562] 3,330,780 in the use of a corporate card, although it can be found guilty by the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the lower court acquitted all of them.

Unfair sentencing: The lower court’s punishment on the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor on authority, the prosecutor examined the case ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, and the prosecutor applied for changes in amendments to the indictment with respect to the occupational breach of trust by using each company card [2015 order68] and [2015 order 15 order 1562] as follows. Since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

【Revised Indictment】

1. The Defendant in breach of trust of KRW 24,605,237 using a corporate card jointly operated the “instant age club” with the victim as above, one (N card number) out of 4 non-business card, a business-based enterprise card issued under the name of the business operator of the “EM club”, was kept by the Defendant, and one (O number: card number):

When the defendant uses the above enterprise card, he/she shall use the above age club.