The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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. Defendant 1) Fact-finding that the Defendant requested the competent officer to supplement the annual salary, practice-based salary, etc. that is insufficient, but it does not request that the Defendant sent it to the account of H, K, P,O (former No. BA), Z, W, X, and Y (hereinafter “H, etc.”).

In addition, there is no fact that the payment of meal expenses, etc. is requested.

2) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and trust relationship, H et al. did not know that the subsidy for outstanding players was deposited in his account.

In light of these circumstances, the existence of legal or de facto fiduciary relationship between H, E, and D exists.

shall not be deemed to exist.

As such, insofar as the crime of embezzlement is not established against E and D, the defendant is not charged with embezzlement.

B) The amount of support for outstanding players at issue in the instant case of occupational embezzlement victim was paid to the F market by the competent authorities upon request by the KPO to share the support for outstanding players under the F market name, and I also notified that I would deposit it into the H et al. account after the KPO made the support decision.

In addition, H et al. had never known such fact.

In light of these circumstances, even if the Defendant embezzled the grants for outstanding players in collusion with E and D, the person who requested the custody of the grants for outstanding players is not H but the victim of embezzlement is F.

C) On December 3, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 238,362,00 from the victim FF to the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant from March 26, 2010, under the name of the Defendant from October 30, 2013, and consumed KRW 4,00,000 for the purpose of living expenses, etc. while he/she was on duty and used KRW 15,108,00 for the remaining 15,108,000 for the victim’s property as the victim did not return it to the victim, thereby embezzlementing the property equivalent to KRW 19,108,00 for the victim’s possession.

“” was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million for an offense of occupational embezzlement, and that is.