Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. As to the embezzlement of the occupational embezzlement related to the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts), the chains in its holding are owned by Samsung SPS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Samsung”), and F paid the price for the manufacture, assembly, processing, test, etc. of the case from Samsung. Since F was paid the price for the manufacture, assembly, test, etc. of the case, the Defendant either stored the above boiler on behalf of the victim company or embezzled it with an intent to acquire unlawful acquisition, and received the payment.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) As to the embezzlement in the course of business related to the motor-use embezzlement, the Defendant did not take one motor-use boiler saving machine into a F plant, and the three motor-use mortar saving machine was purchased from the victim company.

B. According to the evidence of misunderstanding the facts, the prosecutor 1) sufficiently recognizes the fact that M requested the return of M to the Defendant on March 2013.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) that is unfair in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of the facts, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court did not accept the Defendant’s assertion in full view of the circumstances indicated in its holding. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the victim company was determined by G and H’s quantity to be supplied under a contract for purchase of interlocking devices equivalent to KRW 5,500,000,000, which was concluded with Samsung in relation to the P project ordered by the Korea Railroad Facilities Corporation around 2006, and concluded a separate contract, upon receipt of the same goods within the above quantity.

It is difficult to see the case. <2> If Samsung paid additional costs to F, it is supplied to the victim company, which is not supplied in accordance with the above contract for the purchase of the interlocking equipment.