The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Of the embezzlement amount found guilty by the lower court of mistake of facts, KRW 342,698,420 is the victim limited partnership H (hereinafter “victim company”).

2) The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, one year and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable, as it was used for the purpose of using it for the purpose of purposes of embezzlement.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The prosecutor must prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing an intent to acquire unlawful profits in the crime of occupational embezzlement of relevant legal principles. The evidence should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not more likely to have any reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

However, if the representative of the company withdraws and uses the company's money, and does not present evidentiary documents about the place of use, and does not provide reasonable explanation to obtain the reasons for the withdrawal and the place of use, such money can be inferred by withdrawing the company's money with the intent of unlawful acquisition and using it for personal purposes.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3532, Sept. 24, 2004).

The Defendant’s argument by item 1) The amount of KRW 73,617,420, which was withdrawn as indicated in the list of crimes in this part of the Defendant’s argument, is used to purchase “P” ships owned by the victimized company for the victimized company. As such, the crime of embezzlement is not established for KRW 73,617,420.

B. In full view of the circumstances as set forth in the lower court’s judgment, this part of the money used by the Defendant for accounting on the pretext of “the expenses of the President” is personal.