The part of the judgment of the court below's conviction and the part of the acquittal, which constitute occupational embezzlement.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine were also forged on November 14, 2008, and thus, the Defendant’s timely statement is not false.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of defamation by publicly alleging false facts. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of false accusation and occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

A) In light of the fact that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the F had used the instant car prior to the instant declaration process and the F had been aware of the fact that the Defendant made a false report on the fact that F had stolen the said car.

B) As to the embezzlement of occupational duties, the Defendant: (a) transferred the funds of the victimized company to the parentV account via his/her own account and consumed them for personal purposes; (b) the Defendant is deemed to have the intent of unlawful acquisition.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court’s judgment appears to have borne risks, such as the following circumstances acknowledged based on the facts acknowledged as indicated in the judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated, ① Company E (hereinafter “E”) was registered as the representative director upon the victim’s request by the Defendant, and the Defendant was registered as the E’s representative director, and the Defendant was in the name of J, K, and L, transferred from J on October 19, 2007.