The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and two months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts as to the receipt of property in breach of trust and misunderstanding of legal principles belongs to Defendant A’s benefit and loss arising from the F Construction Work (hereinafter “instant Construction Work”) with the Director of the Execution Office, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to be “a person who administers another’s business.”

Nevertheless, as the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the part regarding the property in breach of trust.

(2) The sentence of the lower judgment on unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendants conspired to raise 200 million won in advance for the public prosecutor (the Defendant’s occupational embezzlement as of March 20, 2017) and the misapprehension of legal principles on the part of innocence (the Defendant’s occupational embezzlement as of March 20, 2017) and consumed Defendant B for personal purposes, the intent of illegally obtaining KRW 177 million for all of the Defendants is recognized, and this constitutes an inclusive crime of occupational embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a verdict of innocence as to this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(2) The portion of the judgment of the court below on the grounds of the acquittal of unfair sentencing (the defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, the collection of additional dues for the defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two years) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant A’s taking in breach of trust, the Defendant constitutes “a person who administers the affairs of Defendant D, a person who is a third party (hereinafter “D”) as prescribed in the crime of taking in breach of trust.”

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

(1) The defendant.