Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendant alleged in the lower court that the crime of embezzlement cannot be established for the same purpose as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The lower court acknowledged that the Defendant purchased 5,00,000 won from the injured party on October 19, 2012 without issuing a tax invoice, and that the Defendant paid 41,568,010 won, including value added, from the purchase price, as if he purchased 37,789,100 won and paid 41,568,010 won (41,568,010 won - 5,000 won - 5,000,000 won) from the injured party on November 6, 2012. According to the above acknowledged facts, the lower court sufficiently recognized that the Defendant’s embezzlement was made by appropriating the specific amount of money “purchase of steel bars” and that there was no interference with the Defendant’s settlement with the injured party as alleged by the Defendant.

The decision was determined.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, namely, the Defendant’s investigation conducted by the police, and the Defendant’s question: (i) whether the Defendant received KRW 41,00,000 from the injured party for the purchase of steel bars.”

I will do so.

“At that time, the Defendant did not prepare a tax invoice, and only L, 37,000,000 won, which is the actual steel transaction amount.