The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that the defendant used 400 million won out of the amount of embezzlement as stated in the facts charged for personal purposes, there is a circumstance to suspect that the defendant used most of the amount of embezzlement as stated in the facts charged for personal purposes. On the other hand, in light of the fact that the court below did not submit specific supporting materials as to the amount of embezzlement for which the defendant asserts not guilty, it is recognized that the defendant embezzled all of the amount recorded in the facts charged

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) by the court below is unfair because it is too uneasible.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below acquitted the defendant on the part of the charges of this case, on the ground that the defendant did not prove that he embezzled the above amount in the course of business, even if the defendant did not vindicate the user of the total of KRW 158,541,790 in the "Transfer Amount Table") in the judgment of the court below, since the defendant did not have any comprehensive discretion to allow the victim company to use the amount transferred from D account to D to D's account as operating expenses, and did not require receipt and other documentary evidence.

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence adopted by the court below, the decision of the court below is reasonable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on burden of proof in embezzlement.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court held that the Defendant is working as a Chinese branch of the victim company as the D legal entity.