The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

, however, from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendants (1) are not transferred from the instant company to the new bank account of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) on September 5, 2011, 7.3 million won deposited from the new bank account of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) to the new bank account of H Co., Ltd. on September 5, 201. The said company’s repayment of loans to Defendant B was performed, and KRW 2.67 million deposited from the Defendant’s account on September 5, 201 and October 6, 2011, and KRW 4.6 million deposited from Defendant A’s account on September 5, 201, but rather was transferred from the instant company.

Therefore, the crime of occupational embezzlement is not established against this part.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, the crime of occupational embezzlement of KRW 10,562,60 is not established with respect to the money listed in the attached Table Nos. 3 through 9,000,000, based on the following circumstances.

Of the above money, the money transferred to the account of Defendant B and K is paid as each salary, and Defendant B was not aware of the money deposited into the account of Defendant A andO.

Defendant

B paid a loan amounting to approximately KRW 200 million to the company by investing personal funds in the process of the establishment of the company of this case, and the above defendant was paid the loan amounting to KRW 200 million.

In addition, since the company transferred the company of this case to the defendant B and agreed to have the transferee of the company pay the provisional payment to the defendant B, the above defendant did not have the intention of unlawful acquisition.

(3) The lower court’s sentencing (a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. (1) In light of the following facts, the lower court that acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged of embezzlement or erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

The money withdrawn by the Defendants is the money that was received from the Human Rights Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Human Rights Construction") as advance payment in connection with the I Civil Works, and was under custody.

Therefore, it is true.