The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The legal relationship between the Defendant and the victims regarding the charge of occupational breach of trust and embezzlement (A) of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts (A) is not an internal association but an undisclosed association, and the property of the instant age club is entirely owned by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant’s arbitrary use of the age club as security for personal liability or as security for operating profit or sales contract money does not constitute a crime of occupational breach of trust or occupational embezzlement. It does not constitute a crime of occupational embezzlement. It is not a domestic matter.

Even if credit card sales amount of KRW 26,334,219 was used as operating expenses of the age club, and most of the sales contract amount of KRW 120,000,000, which the court below found guilty, was disbursed as expenses related to the age club or finally reverted to the defendant, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of occupational embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of each part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(B) The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the amount of KRW 97.5 million out of the facts charged, because the Defendant did not deceiving the victims, and had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money from the victims, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) The gist of the Prosecutor’s grounds for appeal is that the Defendant embezzled only KRW 120 million among them while he/she was kept in custody of the victims of the instant age club, which is a business property, but he/she embezzled the entire amount of KRW 480,000,000 for the victims. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The allegation of unfair sentencing (defendants) of the lower judgment (one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of occupational breach of trust and embezzlement (A) first, the Defendant and the victims.