All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

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

B. Regarding the violation of the National Pension Act among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not pay the pension premium due to justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant did not have any justifiable reason for the unpaid pension premiums.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the grounds revealed by the lower court as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake in the facts, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s failure to pay pension premiums by the due date is without justifiable grounds.

① The lower court found the Defendant guilty of occupational embezzlement among the facts charged against the Defendant, but the Defendant consumed a considerable portion of the embezzled money as funds for the company’s operation, such as the purchase of apartment houses for employees’ official use and the payment of wages.

② The Defendant’s annual salary for an injury to the Chief of the Accounts is set at KRW 10 million in 2014, KRW 250 million in 2015, and KRW 170 million in 2016, but the Defendant’s salary is much less than the amount actually paid, and only when the amount is large, the Defendant’s annual salary is set at a lower level than the actual amount.

B. As stated in its reasoning, the lower court’s judgment on the wrongful argument of sentencing by both parties is appropriate in comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the Defendant, and it does not seem that the sentence imposed on the Defendant is too heavy as alleged by the Defendant, or is too minor as alleged by the

3. Conclusion: Defendant and prosecutor.