Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In addition to the sentencing unfair in the statement of the reasons for appeal, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant did not have any intent to acquire illegal facts because it was for the management of the company with respect to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), and thus, there was no intention to acquire illegal facts. ② The Defendant’s withdrawal of KRW 10 billion paid to the company and increased the company’s assets by purchasing Q buildings in an amount equivalent to ten billion won, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the payment of the company’s assets is the most unfair. ③ Although there was a misunderstanding or misapprehension of the legal principles that the Defendant did not have any awareness of the fact that the Defendant’s disclosure was false with respect to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), there was no misconception or misunderstanding of facts on the second trial date of November 25, 2016 and the second trial date of the trial of the court below, even if examining ex officio the judgment of the court below, there was no error in the misapprehension of facts or of legal principles.

The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant shows an attitude against his mistake while recognizing all of the crimes of this case. The defendant acquired the J (hereinafter "victim company") with no knowledge of its financial standing, and it seems to have reached the crime of this case for the recovery of the invested funds and the normalization of the company's management, and there seems to be circumstances to be taken into account in light of the circumstances. The damage amount caused by the crime of embezzlement was returned to the damaged company and the redemption and preservation of the most deposited funds were taken, and considerable damage was restored. The officers, employees, and minority shareholders of the victimized company want to take the defendant's preference, and the defendant was sentenced to a punishment for the escape of a separate execution.