The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal 1) The cost of occupational embezzlement in the No. 1 and No. 2 of the Crime List No. 1 and No. 2 was originally D, but the cost was more than the thought, and D ordered the Defendant to pay it as corporate funds.

B) On September 5, 2016, the Defendant borrowed KRW 5 million from D around September 5, 2016, and around September 6, 2016, in order to repay the above KRW 5 million from the company account to F, first of all, transferred KRW 5 million from the company account to the company account under F, and immediately deposited KRW 5 million from the Defendant’s personal account to the company account again, immediately, deposited KRW 4,6,9,10 of the crime list No. 4,6,9,9,10 of the company account, E, and the Defendant’s expenses consumed in order to obtain the total right to purchase prior to the establishment of a corporation by mutual consent, and paid KRW 20 million from the company fund to E and the Defendant paid KRW 00,000 to the company account by borrowing KRW 5 million from D’s company funds, first of all, KRW 100,000 from D’s funds to the company account.

F) The occupational embezzlement D, as stated in paragraph 11 of the Criminal Day List No. 11, necessary for Chinese business trip expenses, remitted KRW 5 million to the F’s account in the F’s name. (g) Whether D, E, directly affixed to the resolution of the board of directors for forgery of private documents and the uttering of falsified documents or not, the Defendant was not forged. Even if the Defendant prepared the resolution of the board of directors, even if the Defendant was delegated the power to prepare the resolution of the board of directors by D and E, or at least the estimated consent is recognized.

2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unlimited.