The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (i.e., not guilty) is unable to prove at all the source of personal funds deposited in the account of the victimized company.

Rather, the defendant was in a partnership relationship.

The J transferred the Defendant a total of KRW 226,00,000,000 from June 20, 2008 to June 23, 2008, KRW 95,000,000 on June 23, 2008, and KRW 30,000,000 on August 14, 2008, and KRW 51,000,000 on January 3, 2009, the Defendant appears to have deposited the above money of the J to the damaged company, and the Defendant was paid a total of KRW 174,356,80 from July 2, 200 to June 4, 2010 by the victimized company, and ultimately, the amount of KRW 174,356,80 on June 23, 200 on the part of the victimized company and KRW 226,00 on the part of the Customer as well as the amount of KRW 170,00 on the damaged company.

Even if the defendant has a claim against the damaged company, the defendant has a claim against the damaged company.

However, according to the legal principles of the Supreme Court precedents, the defendant cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of occupational embezzlement.

On the other hand, if the money remitted by J as investment deposit to the victimized company, it is reasonable to view that it is the money owned by the victimized company.

Shebly, the sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. The representative director who has an individual claim against the company regarding the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of the facts does not constitute an act of self-transaction in which he/she uses his/her own claim in cash owned by the company for the payment of his/her claim.

Therefore, even if the representative director has repaid his claim against his company without the procedure of approval of the board of directors, it shall be valid as the performance of the company's obligation within the representative director's authority, and therefore the intention of illegal acquisition.