The judgment below

The guilty portion and the price of goods are paid in excess, and they are returned to another person's account.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds from Preparation of a Borrowing Certificate) written four copies of the loan certificate (hereinafter “each loan certificate of this case”) stating that “The Defendant borrowed the Defendant’s pro-Japanese N KRW 700 million from E directorO” (hereinafter “each loan certificate of this case”). However, each of the above loan certificates stated only as “creditorO and obligor N” in the obligee and obligor column.

Therefore, in accordance with the objective judgment of the general public, each of the above loans can not be deemed to be the disguised fact that the defendant has withdrawn money from the corporate account.

In addition, the statement of each of the above lending certificates alone cannot be said to mean the money that the defendant has withdrawn from the corporate account of E as the money that the defendant has withdrawn from the corporate account of E. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have pretended that the money that the defendant has withdrawn from the corporate account of E is not attributed to himself.

Ultimately, the defendant's act of preparing the above loan certificate is an impossible crime, or cannot be punished because it cannot be viewed as an act pretending to the cause or acquisition of criminal proceeds.

2) The lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds from the Act, which was returned to the account held in the name of another person after paying the upper upper limit price for the goods), the lower court determined that the Defendant’s excessive appropriation of the price for the goods and the act of returning the price to another person’s account in the name of another person is merely merely an act of embezzlement and not an act of embezzlement, and acquitted the Defendant of violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds which pretended to have

However, the above act is not necessarily an act accompanying the crime of embezzlement, and it is caused by embezzlement.