All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts): The part found guilty by the lower court is not embezzlement, since the costs incurred by the Defendant to cover business losses pursuant to Article 16 of the joint business agreement between the Defendant and the victim have been compensated as business profits.

B. Prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts and Sentencing: The part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is personally used by the defendant and found the defendant not guilty of this part of the charges even if the defendant's intent to obtain unlawful acquisition is recognized, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, and the sentence imposed by the court below is too minor.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant covered the Defendant’s appropriation cost with business profits pursuant to Article 16 of the Joint Agreement.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant could be found to have withdrawn each money under the pretext of repayment of the above claim on the premise that he/she has the above claim for provisional deposit. Thus, the defendant had an intent to obtain unlawful profits from the defendant.

It is reasonable to see that the Defendant did not have a claim for provisional payments at the time of committing this part of the crime (as stated by the lower judgment, the Defendant did not have a claim for provisional payments, and even from July 1, 2013 to September 24, 2013, there was no preservation of the Defendant’s appropriation cost as operating income even once from July 1, 2013). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined as to the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the amount of punishment. In so doing, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, recognizes the Defendant as unlawful acquisition intent with regard to the portion of the Defendant’s withdrawal of money as a repayment of the claim for provisional collection in the status of having the claim for provisional collection, and the beverage cost (26,000 won) purchased at the time of the meeting