The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent.

1. On October 1, 2009, the Defendant received KRW 14,000,000,000 from each of the instant accounts on December 13, 201, after receiving KRW 14,00,00,000 in total from the instant accounts, and invested KRW 3,00,000,000 in money from the instant accounts, and invested in money from the instant accounts by means of receiving KRW 14,00,000,00 in stock transaction and investment funds management at a new investment financing E branch located in the second floor of the building in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant account”) and received the seal from the victim F, and received KRW 5,00,000 on the same day from the victim’s account under the name of the instant account.

On July 8, 2010, the Defendant kept 5,168,015 won in the balance of deposit received in the instant account for the victim, and voluntarily withdrawn 5,000,000 won out of 12,315,305 won in the balance of the instant account on or around August 6, 2010, and embezzled 17,000,000 won in the balance of 2,316,141 won in the instant account, including withdrawing 2,00,000 won in the balance of 2,316,141 won in the instant account on or around August 16, 2010.

2. The lower court found the victim guilty of the instant facts charged by adopting the victim’s legal statement in the lower court, written statement of securities account transactions, and written statement of money borrowed, etc. as evidence.

3. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by taking the victim F’s testimony without credibility in light of the background of the case or the testimony of other witnesses.

B. In light of the circumstances in which the Defendant did not have been punished on one occasion prior to a fine, and the Defendant deposited KRW 2 million for the sake of the victim’s relationship with the victim, the reimbursement of damages, and the provision of the 31st instrument as security, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

4...