The judgment below

The defendant's case shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. misunderstanding of facts (i.e., occupational breach of trust) since the defendant was not a simple monthly-level clerical work of the certified judicial scrivener office of this case employed by the victim E, but is in the position of the actual operator who was allocated the above office's revenue with E, it is not in the position of a person who administers another's business. Even if such position is recognized, the use of the credit card of this case constitutes a direct or indirect disbursement for the maintenance and operation of the above certified judicial scrivener office of this case, or is equivalent thereto, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as an act of breach of trust, since E has consented or ratified it ex post facto.

D. Inasmuch as the Defendant voluntarily used the instant insurance or mutual aid contract termination refund money is paid to the Defendant as part of the distribution of the profits of the certified judicial scrivener office of this case, it cannot be deemed that the said money belongs to the certified judicial scrivener office of this case, and that the Defendant was in the status of keeping the said money for E.

In addition, since the defendant consented in advance or ratified ex post facto the termination refund of insurance purchased under the name of the defendant as part of the distribution of profits of the certified judicial scrivener office of this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant embezzled the termination refund of this case, and unless there is a clear agreement between the defendant and E as to the place of use of the said money, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the criminal intent of embezzlement.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the charge of occupational breach of trust, (i) the Defendant’s summary of the facts charged is the chief secretary of the certified judicial scrivener office operated by the victim E (hereinafter “this case’s certified judicial scrivener office”) from December 1993 to June 201.