The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and the legal principles) is unreasonable in the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the grounds that the defendant did not recognize the "the status of a person who takes custody of the property of the victim company" on the ground that he did not merely act as a broker for the transaction between individuals with respect to the cemetery of this case and received the fees, but rather, as the managing director of the victim company.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by authority, and the prosecutor changed the existing facts charged into the primary facts charged as stated in Paragraph 3(a) below, and applied for an amendment to an indictment to add the charges of occupational breach of trust to the following facts as stated in the facts of the crime (the reasons for the judgment to be used again). Since this court permitted it, the subject of the judgment was changed and added, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the prosecutor's misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the primary facts charged still are subject to the judgment of this court with regard to the changed primary facts charged, even though there is a ground for reversal of authority above.

3. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from November 2014 to October 2015, was in office as the head of the management division of the victim foundation C (Slsan-gu D) of the victim foundation C (Slsan-gu, Ulsan-gu) and was in general in charge of the overall affairs, including the management of funds and the management of employees of the victim foundation.

On November 27, 2014, the Defendant leased a cemetery (E twice) owned by the victim company to F, and received KRW 7 million from F to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant, and then refunded KRW 2,038,000 to the former user, and then refunded the balance to KRW 4,962,00.