Defendant

The guilty part of the judgment of the court below against A and the guilty part of the occupational embezzlement in the name of salary.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (Defendant A) 1) The Defendant’s wife ND Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”)

(1) by taking advantage of the registration as an auditor, the Defendant embezzled money for audit fees without a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, and the Defendant is a P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “P”).

(2) The court below acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged of occupational embezzlement, violation of the Labor Standards Act, violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, and violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, by failing to pay wages and retirement allowances to workers in the status of the employer of the victimized company. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of the court below (5 million won of a fine) is excessively unreasonable.

B. The sentence of Defendant B (two months of imprisonment) by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant A: (a) Even if a general meeting of shareholders or a resolution of the board of directors determines abstract remuneration for an executive officer of a corporation as remuneration, there is no specific right to claim payment of remuneration in the case of an executive officer who does not perform his/her actual business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1813, Jun. 1, 2007). Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the Defendant's wife N was registered as the auditor of the victimized company, but there is no fact that N was registered as the victimized company, and the Defendant A also did not work as the victimized company or perform its duties as the auditor.