The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Progress of judgment;

A. The prosecutor brought a prosecution against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant, together with C and D, stolen pine trees worth KRW 114 (hereinafter “instant pine trees”) worth KRW 452,54,242 in the market price owned by the Cheongnam-do Development Corporation, Chungcheongnam-do from around May 201 to June 201, the prosecutor prosecuted the Defendant on several occasions on the ground that the Defendant stolen pine trees worth KRW 114 (hereinafter “instant pine trees”).

B. The lower court determined that the above facts charged constitute a case where the Defendant was understood by the possessor at the time of theft, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(c)

A prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court below on the ground of mistake of facts, and changed the facts charged of the above special larceny into the primary facts charged, and subsequently, the defendant conspired with BE, a site warden of C, D and BD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BD”) in sequence, and applied for the amendment of the indictment to add ancillary facts as to the embezzlement of the above 114 shares in the course of business, and the judgment prior to the return was permitted.

(d)

Before remanding, the first instance court determined that the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendant as to the primary charge (special larceny) is groundless, and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence for six months by applying “Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act” to “Article 356, 355(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act.”

E. The Defendant appealed against the judgment of the lower court prior to remand, on the ground that it exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and misunderstanding the legal doctrine on the crime of embezzlement.

F. The court of final appeal is justifiable to have convicted the defendant of the embezzlement of occupational embezzlement prior to remand. However, the Criminal Act applies to the instant occupational embezzlement committed in collusion with a person who has no status relationship in the crime of embezzlement.