The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In addition, the key issue of the instant case is that the Defendant’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles received money from G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) received money from the Defendant from the victim Co., Ltd. in cash, or received money from the victim Co., Ltd., or was paid as piece rates or expenses, or used for other purposes for the victim Co., Ltd., and thus,

Even if the lower court found the Defendant guilty of a part of the facts charged of embezzlement as stated in the lower judgment, considering that there was an interval of three years between the embezzlement in 2001 and the embezzlement in 2004, the entire act of the Defendant cannot be deemed as a single comprehensive crime committed under the single criminal intent.

Ultimately, the statute of limitations for part of the facts charged in the instant case has expired.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

In the case of the [Attachment 1] No. 1] of the Prosecutor (Definite, misunderstanding of the legal principle), T was in a mixed state due to navigation cancer treatment at the time, so it was impossible to conduct financial transactions with the Defendant.

Money deposited in the defendant's wife account on February 6, 1997 is money embezzled by the defendant from the victim company.

Attached Form

In the case of Nos. 12, 53, 54, and 55 in the list of crimes, considering the fact that the date when the money was withdrawn by the victim company and the date and time when the money was deposited in the defendant's account, the money deposited in the defendant's account is presumed to be the money of the victim company.

Attached Form

In the case of No. 58, the defendant did not dispute the fact that he received KRW 100 million in the related civil procedure.

The defendant asserts that KRW 100 million has been transferred to a P account in order to pay the capital increase in the name of the defendant, but this part of the facts charged was already completed and there was no reason to receive the money of the victim company as a price for capital increase.

annex.