The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As a matter of course, the defendant did not pay transportation revenue to the above company, since he/she received unpaid wages from D Co., Ltd., a taxi company where the defendant had worked and the defendant disposed of unpaid transportation revenue by offsetting them.

Even if the crime of occupational embezzlement is not established, it is not established.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (200,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Upon determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle, inasmuch as an offense was established by embezzlement of another person’s money in his/her occupational custody with the intent of unlawful acquisition, the person who committed the embezzlement asserts that he/she has a separate monetary claim against the owner of the goods, and that the person has expressed his/her intent of offset against the amount of embezzlement from the equivalent amount of automatic bonds, it does not affect the crime of occupational embezzlement already established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do59, Mar. 14, 1995). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion of the above misapprehension of the legal principle is without merit, since the unpaid Defendant’s wage claim and the Defendant’s obligation to return the unpaid transportation revenue accrued to the company offset each other on January 1, 2013 against the unpaid Defendant’s company’s wage claim and the Defendant’s obligation to return the transportation revenue accrued to the company, and the Defendant did not have any influence on the already established crime of occupational embezzlement.

B. Although there are unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant did not recognize his own criminal act and did not agree with the victim, the Defendant did not have any record of punishment except for two-time fines, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the company for wage claim against the company, which was unpaid by the company on January 2013, and the Defendant did not deposit the taxi operating income with the company among the taxi operating income.