1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as follows, except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion that the plaintiff is liable to pay for the grounds of appeal in the court of first instance, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As the grounds of appeal, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant embezzled the sales price equivalent to the difference by means of double preparation of the transaction specifications for delivery of transaction partners and the transaction specifications for storage of the Plaintiff while serving as the Plaintiff’s business office.

B. However, even if the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance reveals the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in the trial, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant, as the representative of the Plaintiff, issued a transaction statement stating the actual transaction details to the Plaintiff and submitted a false transaction statement containing the omission of certain transaction details to the Plaintiff, etc., and embezzled the price of goods equivalent to the difference, and had the Plaintiff’s accounting personnel issue a tax invoice according to the sales statement based on the transaction statement for the purpose of delivery of transaction partners, not the Plaintiff’s computerized sales revenue, not the transaction revenue entered in the Plaintiff’s computer system, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Rather, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the first instance and the first instance court, ① The Defendant’s embezzlement method asserted by the Plaintiff is easy to confirm only the sum of the Plaintiff’s computerized sales amount and the sum of the supply values on the tax invoice. As alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant embezzled approximately KRW 1.4 billion amount to E or other employees for four years and six months.