The judgment below

In this regard, the guilty part, each public electronic record, and each false electronic record are used.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Of the facts charged of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the part concerning occupational embezzlement (hereinafter “the part concerning occupational embezzlement of this case”).

(E) As to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), the Defendant is only the Defendant

(2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the occupational embezzlement of this case on the ground that, even if one of the lease deposit or loans, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit the crime of occupational embezzlement. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the part concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement and misunderstanding of legal principles) (hereinafter “the part concerning the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement”), among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant embezzled KRW 646 million of the E’s funds kept in business in the name of an individual in the course of acquiring the 10th office office of the building in the name of the Defendant on his own. ② As to the part concerning the non-statement and exercise of the respective public electronic records, etc. among the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “the part concerning the non-statement and exercise of the instant case”), it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the implied consent of G in the course of performing the act of making the false entry and exercise of the instant case, and even though the Defendant’s act of making the false entry and exercise of the instant case could not be deemed to be helpful for inducing foreign investment or beneficial to G, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. mistake of facts by the defendant and