All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have disbursed each money recorded in the facts charged as insurance premiums to prepare facility costs, business promotion expenses for the operation of child care centers, etc., and there was no embezzlement using personal purposes. It is unreasonable to recognize embezzlement on the grounds that the Defendant did not explain the user of the money recorded in the facts charged. 2) The punishment of the lower court of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, and 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (defendant 1), the prosecutor must prove that there was an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing an intention of unlawful acquisition. The evidence should be based on strict evidence with probative value that makes a judge not more reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt about the defendant's guilt, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant. However, even if there is no such evidence, there is no doubt about the defendant's guilt. However, if there is insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was used in the place of use as alleged by the defendant, such as failure to explain the location or place of use, or disclosure that the funds used in the place of use claimed by the defendant were appropriated for other funds, it is insufficient to prove that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was used in the place of use as alleged by the defendant, and it is more reliable evidence to prove that the defendant was used for personal use, it may be presumed that the defendant embezzled the above money with the intention of unlawful acquisition (Supreme Court Decision 9Do457 delivered on March 14, 200).