The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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. The sentence of one-year imprisonment imposed on the Defendant by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the acquittal portion at the time of original trial), the first defendant alleged to the effect that he had no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition on the premise that he received the repayment of the loan claims held in the form of provisional collection. Although he newly asserted, such as disputing the status of a custodian on duty through counsel’s written opinion after the closing of argument in the court below, the court below accepted and acquitted the defendant without further deliberation. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the selection of evidence within the incomplete hearing and misconception of the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The court below's decision is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to one-year imprisonment, which the court below sentenced to the defendant,

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The facts charged (business embezzlement against victim E) is a major shareholder of victim E who is R at the time of strike.

The defendant, as a director of the victim company, conspiredd to embezzlement by reducing part of the sales of the victim company's son S and the defendant's son who is in charge of managing the sales of the victim company.

The Defendant and S: (a) from September 25, 2008 to October 19, 2009, after K, etc., an employee of the victim company, had K, etc., on behalf of the victim company, keep its sales proceeds, including golf courses and golf practice course usage fees, delivered from the customers of the above company for the victim company; (b) had K, etc. arbitrarily transfer 252,748,770 won via several occasions as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (T) at the time of original adjudication, to K, etc. to the new cooperation account (T) in the name of the defendant; and (c) remitted 200 million won to F, Sept. 29, 2009; and (d) deposited the remainder 52,748,770 won in the Defendant’s regular deposit account on November 12, 2009.

In this respect.