The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The point of occupational embezzlement F is E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

(2) Since the Defendant paid dividends to the shareholders of E without the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders and the board of directors, even if he paid dividends to the shareholders of E without a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders and the board of directors, it does not cause damage to the company, and thus, it does not constitute occupational breach of trust.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. 1) The Defendant, as the representative of the victim E, is a person in charge of overall management of the company, such as the victim E’s execution of funds, and F is a G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”).

(2) For the purpose of resolving the labor-management division of E, the employee of E was appointed as the joint representative director around October 2007, and he was engaged in the business for resolving the labor-management division of E, and thereafter, he did not actually perform the business as the representative director of E, and even though he was employed as the employee of G, he was registered as the joint representative director of the said company. The Defendant embezzled it by arbitrarily paying approximately KRW 4,00,000 per month from January 2008 to February 8, 201, the sum of KRW 138,565,090 per month for the benefit of E from February 201 to February 8, 201. 2) In the judgment of embezzlement, the illegal acquisition intent means that the custodian of other’s property intends to dispose of the owner’s own property without authority in violation of the purpose of entrustment. Thus, the custodian is not for the benefit of himself or a third party, but for the benefit of the owner.