1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years;

1. The court below convicted each of the charges of not guilty, occupational embezzlement, and driving under the influence of alcohol, of the following facts: the fact that the public records, etc. of this case were entered, the fact that the public records, etc. of this case were exercised, the fact that the private records, etc. of this case were prepared, the fact that the private records, etc. of this case were prepared, and the fact that

However, only the Defendant appealed against the guilty portion, and the acquittal portion among the judgment below was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) There is no fact that the Defendant embezzled the principal documents owned by the victim B and C. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, but there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the fraud of the facts charged in the instant case concerning the victim’s Z, and there is no fact that the Defendant was engaged in the business with the Z and received a share of profits from the Z, and

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconception of facts.

(A) The fraud of the victim H and Q was reversed by the trial, and each confession was made.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The Defendant and the defense counsel at the lower court asserted the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part.

As long as the crime of occupational embezzlement has been established based on the following detailed circumstances, the lower court’s conclusion does not change even if the Defendant returned the documents of the victim company around July 10, 2017 during the instant period.