All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) As the misunderstanding of the facts and the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine were paid or subsequently returned the money deposited into his account with the actual insurance premium, there was no intent of embezzlement or embezzlement.

However, the court below found guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court, namely, ① the Defendant was well aware of the importance of adequate accounting while working as an employee in charge of accounting at a school for a long time, as stated in the lower judgment’s reasoning, the Defendant received health insurance premiums, long-term medical care insurance premiums, refunds, etc. from the school staff and fixed-term workers from cash from around 2010 to 2015, or transferred them to an individual account at a school, or re-transfer them to his personal account again, and ② the Defendant carried out such duties for convenience because of a large number of duties at the time.

First of all, it seems that only a simple information is automatically produced through the “age” system with respect to the payment of benefits and deduction of various insurance premiums by the school staff, etc., and rather, as in the instant case, the amount of settlement would not be matched if the system is not used, and there is no special reason for the Defendant to receive public funds through the personal account, as it appears that the duties of the accounting staff are much increased, and ③ even if the Defendant had to perform duties as a personal account, it is inevitable to do so.