The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, 1) As to embezzlement, 82 stuffs owned by the victim were kept in H’s warehouse, and thus, the Defendant was in the position of a custodian of property for the victim at the time.

subsection (b) of this section.

The offer of security to F was led by H, and the victim was aware of the fact of the offer of security, so the Defendant did not embezzled 82 gamblings.

2) As to Section 1, the facts charged in the instant case premised on the Defendant’s custody of clothes 23 stuffs, theft cannot be established. Even if a garment custodian was H, it was in violation of another’s possession in itself of the facts charged even if the garment custodian was H.

Since theft is not established, it is not possible to do so.

Since the above garment's garment was arranged to H this employee, the defendant did not know how the 23 garment 23 was included in the goods owned by the defendant, and only requested H to sell the garment after confirming it to H.

Therefore, the defendant does not have a theft of clothes 23 stuffs.

B. Sentencing

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

In the trial of the party, the prosecutor selectively applied Paragraph 2 of the facts charged against the defendant, "Embezzlement" in the name of the crime, "Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the applicable law, "Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act" in addition to the facts charged, and applied for the amendment of the indictment. This court permitted this and changed the subject of the trial.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's argument of misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles as to embezzlement is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined in the below.

The assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles concerning larceny is about the judgment of the court below concerning the previous facts charged before the amendment of indictment as above.