The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case and June 2012.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The Defendant used the money received as the F’s salary for the Company’s operating fund, and received the processed principal transaction for the purpose of accounting and returned the money paid as the principal payment to the Company’s account and deposited it again into the Company’s account. As such, there is no intent to commit the crime of embezzlement and to acquire illegal profits.

(2) The point of embezzlement cutting is owned by the Defendant’s wife, and thus, did not be embezzled.

(3) The act of breach of trust is not committed since the documents were prepared with the consent of O, P, and Q in the process of arranging the shares held in trust under the agreement with the O, in the process of forging the private documents related to the shares, exercising the above investigation documents, and arranging the shares held in trust under the agreement with theO. As such, the act of breach of trust is not committed.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the occupational embezzlement, fabrication of private documents related to stocks, uttering of a falsified document, and breach of trust with respect to F’s benefits, the court below rejected the above assertion in detail by stating the Defendant’s assertion under the title “as to the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment of the court below. In light of the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the record, the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. (1) With respect to the embezzlement of occupational duties against the money in the name of the principal price, the Defendant in the charge of this part of the charges issued a tax invoice under the name of the victim company as if there were actual transactions, even though he did not receive oil, etc. from the I oil station operated by H in connection with G Corporation in connection with G Corporation operated by the victim company, and paid the transaction price to H account.