The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

The rationale behind the attorney’s appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant embezzled the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the gist of the grounds for appeal on the sole ground that he was unable to specifically memory the purpose of each used amount at 8,10,20 times

shall not be appointed by a person.

The amount used at Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of the Criminal List Nos. 1, 2, 12, 14 and 15 is the money used by H for personal purposes without prior permission of the defendant. Since each amount used at Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 17, 18, and 19 of the Criminal List No. 3, 4, 6, 17, 18, and 19 was money used for personal purposes with the idea that the defendant would settle the case later,

The amount used from Nos. 22 and 23 of the crime sight table Nos. 22 and 23 was used by the Defendant to connect the employees N of M companies, a transaction company, with the victim as the same business. The amount used again from Nos. 13 of the crime sight table Nos. 13 is money used as entertainment expenses for the company, a transaction company, as the transaction company, and the amount used again from Nos. 16 of the crime sight table Nos. 16, the Defendant and H had worked in the “E” and used it while making a supperous death. Thus, the Defendant embezzled each of the above amount used.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding guilty of the above part of the facts charged in this case.

There was clear intention of illegal acquisition of sentencing against the defendant.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see the amount embezzled by the Defendant, the fact that there are circumstances to consider the amount embezzled by the Defendant as yet to be settled with the victim, and the amount of damages actually suffered by the victim is insignificant, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced to 700,000 won is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Attached Form

The defendant asserts that the amount of each use of the crime table Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 through 20 was identical to that of the appeal in the original court, and the lower court, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, shall be the defendant.