The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the receipt of breach of trust against the joint advertising expenses (Defendant 1) 1: (a) the Defendant has actually received the joint advertising expenses; (b) the Defendant did not have intentionally demanded D companies to advertise or provide any negative articles against D companies; (c) D companies have never engaged in any negative articles against D companies; and (d) they have actually made a statement that D companies had the effect of advertising; (d) in fact, the joint advertising was published twice a year; and (e) D companies have confirmed whether the advertisement was published; (b) the Defendant received the joint advertising expenses and transferred a certain amount to the head office and used the remainder as the expenses for the operation of the branch office, etc.; and (c) it cannot be deemed that there was an illegal solicitation between D companies and the Defendant.

② The Defendant’s act of importing common advertising was committed as a practice, and the Defendant paid full value-added tax and income tax on common advertising fees. The Defendant’s act of importing common advertising was a practice and daily advertising act, and accordingly, the Defendant did not have intention or awareness of breach of trust.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the charged facts in this part is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion.

B. As to the occupational embezzlement of individual advertising costs, ① the Defendant did not have the status of “storager” because he/she had his/her personal business registered separately from the head office and received the advertisement as an individual business activity.

(2) Since the Defendant was silent or understood from the head office in advance, there was no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition from the Defendant.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.