The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

Although there is a fact that the defendant has received 120 million won from the victim through a bank account in the name of F Co., Ltd., the defendant actually received the remittance, it is merely a fact that the defendant has actually consumed the money that the defendant acquired by the above fraud, it constitutes an act after the crime of punishment.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by deeming the money acquired by the defendant as the ownership of F Co., Ltd., and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of legal principles (defendant) since the proceeds obtained by deceiving the victims while carrying out the business of the company belongs to the company, embezzlement by the representative director infringes legal interests other than infringing on fraud, and thus constitutes a separate crime of embezzlement committed against the company as the victim, since the corporation is an independent right holder separate from the shareholders, and thus, it does not necessarily coincide with the interests of the company. Thus, if the funds were disbursed voluntarily for private purposes, such as repayment of personal debt of the shareholder or representative director, acquisition of shares of another company or investment, personal donation or lending, regardless of the company's business affairs, it cannot be exempted from the liability of embezzlement regardless of whether there was a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors as to such disbursements.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do741, Apr. 29, 2005). The Defendant asserted the above misunderstanding of legal principles in light of the above legal principles, since he was led to the confession in the first instance court, and thus, in light of the above legal principles, the health belt and the lower court’s judgment are legitimate.