The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years: Provided, That the above sentence shall be imposed for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1, as the representative director of S Co., Ltd. (S) (hereinafter “S”), the Defendant, as the representative director, concluded a management consulting contract for resolution of management right disputes with H (hereinafter “H”) with the victim to receive KRW 5 billion as remuneration.

B) The Defendant merely opened the name in the name of S in the context of exercising a security right while keeping the real share certificates of 253,799 shares of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) owned by the victim as a security for the above remuneration. As such, the Defendant did not intend to obtain unlawful profits from the Defendant, and did not agree with G on the title of the instant shares.

C) Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Although prosecutor 1) should calculate the amount of embezzlement due to the instant crime by adding the management premium to the value of the instant shares, such as misunderstanding of facts, the lower court excluded this. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant's intent to obtain unlawful procurement in determining the defendant's misunderstanding of facts, etc.

The term "an intention to dispose of property of another person in violation of his/her duty for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party, such as his/her own property, and even if there is an intention to return, compensate, or preserve it later, there is no difficulty in recognizing the intention of unlawful acquisition (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do3045, Aug. 19, 2005; 201Do7259, Mar. 14, 2013). The intention of unlawful acquisition belongs to the intention of internal deliberation, and if the defendant denies it, it is such subjective element.