The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below), Defendant’s act of entering the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below is deemed to be

) The Hbank account (Account I, hereinafter “instant account”) of the instant company with N’s instruction or prior approval, which is the substantial management entity.

Since it is paid in the course of managing the company of this case and it is consistent with the actual intent of the company of this case, the act of embezzlement is not deemed to be an act of embezzlement (On the other hand, C, D, and E (hereinafter referred to as "C, etc.") as joint investors consent to the above disbursement, and the above act of the defendant is consistent with their intent, so it cannot be deemed to be an act of embezzlement even if it is assumed that C, etc. is deemed to

[2] The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the defendant committed the above act with the purpose of pursuing the interest of the company of this case and there is no intent to acquire unlawful profits from the defendant. Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant voluntarily consumed and embezzled the money held in the account of this case on behalf of the company of this case and thereby convicted the defendant of this part of the charges.

B. Prosecutor (Fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles) 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the part not guilty in the judgment of the lower court) B (hereinafter “B”).

(B) the H Bank Account (Account Number T, hereinafter “B”) of the H Bank Account;

84,875,630 won of the value-added tax refund deposited in B as public funds of B, and in the flow of funds after the deposit of the value-added tax refund, the Defendant appears to have used all the money for personal purposes, and it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone constitutes the crime of occupational embezzlement is proven without reasonable doubt.