All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the mistake of facts (as to the acquittal portion on the ground) by the prosecutor, the defendant could sufficiently be recognized that he embezzled the facts by paying KRW 100,000,000,00 which was kept for the victim against his occupational duty as stated in this part of the facts charged, and on a different premise, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The above sentence committed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from February 1, 2013 to May 8, 2014, engaged in the business of managing funds and accounts of the victim E (hereinafter “victim E”).

On April 1, 2014, the Defendant arbitrarily paid 100,000 won of the funds of the victim company that was kept in business for the victim company to K for traffic expenses.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim company that was under custody in the course of business.

B. According to the records of this case, the lower court and the lower court determined the lower court: (a) as K is registered as a director of the victim company; (b) so long as K is legally liable under the Commercial Act even if K does not perform its substantive duties, it cannot be deemed that the amount of expenditure of KRW 100,000,000, which can be viewed as being paid therefrom, is excessive to the extent that it loses a considerable balance between the performance of duties and the payment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da21308, Sept. 10, 2015).