The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant 1 should be excluded from the amount of the embezzlement of this case’s misunderstanding of fact, the lower court’s judgment that recognized this part as the amount of embezzlement was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Part on the criminal facts excluded by any of the following changes in the indictment shall be excluded from the original grounds for appeal by the defendant:

A) Of each embezzlement amount listed in the table of crime Nos. 53 through 55 as stated in the holding of the court below, each of the above embezzlement amount (the Defendant initially asserted that the part of KRW 600,000 among the amounts listed in the above sequences was a legitimate salary, but the Defendant changed his opinion of April 17, 2017, Nos. 53, 54, and No. 380,000, and No. 460,000 as a legitimate salary) should be excluded from the embezzlement amount.

B) Of the list of crimes in the judgment of the court below, the part as indicated in Nos. 94 and 95 of the list of crimes in which No. 95 and 96 were modified.

See No. 3 of each note. The full amount of each statement must be excluded from the amount of embezzlement, as it is paid fairly as salary.

C) Since the Defendant withdrawn the amount of money transferred to the account of O, Q, S, and AA among the amount of embezzlement as indicated in the lower judgment, and paid as consideration to an employee who took half of the amount (referring to the amount that the employee made out and left out through fingerprint recognition, but does not actually work). As such, the amount should also be excluded from the amount of embezzlement.

(B) The Defendant asserted that the amount of the benefits indicated in the Defendant’s actual benefit and benefit ledger should be excluded from the amount of embezzlement, and the amount that the Defendant spent as a bribe or fine for the victim company should also be excluded from the amount of embezzlement. However, on April 17, 2017, the Defendant explicitly withdrawn each of the above arguments through his defense counsel’s written opinion.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor of the court below.