All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant received benefits of KRW 17 million from the funds of the victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) that the Defendant actually operated. Since this is an act of performing a company’s legitimate obligation, it does not constitute embezzlement, and the Defendant did not have any intent to obtain unlawful profits from the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of embezzlement of KRW 17 million for the purpose of paying benefits. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. On March 12, 2012, the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine) restricted the Defendant’s authority on the use of money transferred to the account in the name of the victimized company by W (hereinafter “W”) after March 12, 2012 in accordance with his/her debt repayment certificate.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) made a withdrawal of KRW 492,843,000, out of the money transferred by W to the account of the victimized company without N’s consent, to cover his/her claim for provisional collection of money; (b) the Defendant had the custody of the account and seal impression in the name of the victimized company; and (c) made use of the money of the victimized company for the personal purpose; and (d) thereby,

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on illegal acquisition intent and consignment relationship, or by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational embezzlement, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant also raises objection to the lower court.