The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (De facto mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) 1) The instant center is merely an unincorporated private enterprise and cannot be an owner of property. Since the Defendant received justifiable compensation in relation to the business performed by the Defendant in the course of operating the instant center in the account under the name of E, the Defendant is not recognized as an unlawful acquisition intent. 2) Since F merely was a representative of the instant center under the name of the Defendant, and the actual complaint’s duties were carried out by the Defendant for a long time, and as F did not raise an objection to the balance, the amount in the name of the benefits deposited to F cannot be deemed as the ownership of F, and even if the Defendant withdrawn and used it, the crime of embezzlement is not established.

3) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. B. The prosecutor (an unjust sentence of the lower court) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the embezzlement of the instant center as a victim, the court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① since the instant center is an entity that has separate legal personality from the Defendant as the activity support institution under Article 20 of the Act on Activity of Persons with Disabilities, even if the Defendant established the center by investing funds, it cannot be deemed that the funds of the center are owned by the Defendant. ② The Defendant was in a situation where the control and disposition of the funds was possible as the actual representative of the center, and accordingly, was in a position of keeping funds for the center. ③ The act of transferring the funds to the E deposit account that the Defendant lent only in the name of the director, thereby the embezzlement was realized, and the act of embezzlement was completed, and whether the Defendant was authorized to dispose of the money deposited in the said deposit account thereafter, and ④ the Defendant has no effect on the establishment of the crime of embezzlement.