The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

The defendant is innocent.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, according to the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the Defendant’s embezzlement as stated in the facts charged can be acknowledged.

2. Determination

A. In the first instance trial, the prosecutor embezzled KRW 64,021,870, as stated in the list of crimes, from the date of January 2009, the Defendant embezzled KRW 64,021,870, as stated in the list of crimes, from the date of the instant facts charged to the point of time until October 2012, when the Defendant voluntarily consumed KRW 3,894,490, monthly cash sales from the restaurant located in the above premises of the instant case for the victim company in the course of business on behalf of the victim company.

“Around January 2009, the Defendant embezzled KRW 61,307,520 in total, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, from around the same manner until October 2012, the Defendant embezzled KRW 61,30,520, in the same manner, when he/she had been engaged in the business of selling KRW 3,283,760 in cash for meal service at the above restaurant on January 2009 at the business place for the victim company, in which he/she voluntarily consumed the Defendant’s credit card payment and living expenses, etc., and embezzled them.

As stated in the judgment of the court below, the application for permission to amend the bill of amendment to the indictment was filed with the same content as the list of crimes in the annexed Form of the judgment of the court, and since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the court below's argument that the prosecutor's mistake of the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) The summary of the public hall room (amended charges) is as follows: (a) the Defendant works as a dietitian in the G restaurant located in the Daejeon Jung-gu, Seoul, which was operated by the victim E (ju) from September 28, 2008 to October 30, 2012; (b) the preparation, cooking, selling price of food tickets, and management, etc. of cash meal boxes.