The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The actual one shareholder of the victim FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim F Co., Ltd.”) was the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

G deposited personal funds into the bank account in the name of the victim company, and traded shares in the name of the victim company. After the death of G, the defendant disposed of the above shares held by G in the name of the victim company, and used the price after transferring it to another account.

Therefore, since the money deposited in the bank account in the name of the victim company, or the shares purchased through the above account are not the ownership of the victim company, but the private property of G or the property held in trust by G in the name of the victim company, the defendant's act of disposal at will does not constitute the crime of embezzlement against the victim company, regardless of the fact that G's act of disposal at will can be constituted

B) Although it was true that the Defendant used the money from the account of the victim company to transfer or withdraw, most of the money was used for the victim company, such as paying wages to executives and employees of the company, or paying for the operating expenses of the company. Some of G used to pay the O and P’s living expenses, which is the heir of G, and KRW 850 million, which is the heir of the representative director of the victim company’s representative director G, was separated from the account of the Suhyup Bank to pay H by understanding the money corresponding to the H’s share of inheritance, which is the heir of the principal director of the company

Therefore, the money of this case is owned by the victim company.

Even if the defendant does not have the intention to obtain illegal acquisition, the crime of embezzlement is not established.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: A prosecutor used part of the sum of the withdrawals of 46 million won in the attached list Nos. 9, 10, 17, and 29, which was acquitted by the lower court, as electricity, telephone, etc.; or