The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The agreement between the prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts and the defendant and H on December 1, 2006 that the time of opening the business of the hospital of this case as of December 24, 2006 is that H was at the time of November 24, 2006 when H deposited KRW 200 million. Thus, the defendant's use of the money for his personal use in the hospital (the cash held by him; hereinafter the same meaning as the same) constitutes embezzlement. The part of the judgment of the court below that found the defendant not guilty is either made out of the hospital located in the hospital located after the commencement of the business or made out at the discretion without the agreement with H, but the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant of this part.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. As to the part that embezzled KRW 20,769,326 among the portion of Defendant (1)’s mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles (A) credit card payments and relative values, Defendant and H agreed that the instant hospital was operating together and agreed to pay and settle the purchase cost of equipment related to the operation of the hospital first of all, including expenses for meals, credit card payments, and other personal expenses incurred in the operation of the hospital, in advance at the time of the hospital, and the subsequent settlement has been made accordingly. Some errors in the settlement are only the number of errors in the calculation of I, who is an accounting employee, and the Defendant did not specifically instruct the I to omit part of the amount intentionally in the course of the settlement, or did not know the above errors, and thus, it is unreasonable to find the facts of the lower judgment convicting this part of the charges.

Furthermore, as of December 1, 2006, the lower court recognized the establishment of embezzlement against the credit card payment, relative value, etc. used thereafter as of the time the Defendant and H came into force, but H was first at the beginning.