A. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant’s insurance premium of KRW 15,000,000 paid out of KRW 140,000,000 as the intermediary fee for the transfer contract; and (b) the amount of KRW 6,013,70,00 used for the repayment of the debt of the immediately preceding and current Ansan store, which the Defendant acquired by transferring the instant D, cannot be deemed as the amount embezzled.

However, the brokerage fee is borne by the defendant in the course of unilaterally disposing of the inner point without the victim E who is a partner, and cannot be deemed as the debt of the defendant and the victim, and 6,013,700 won was used for the repayment of the debt of the above inner point.

Since there is insufficient evidence to view, the above amount should also be included in the amount of embezzlement of the defendant.

2) In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the criminal defendant was not guilty and did not reflect the fact that the criminal defendant was not guilty, the sentence of two-year suspended sentence in the sixth month of imprisonment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, ① The instant transfer proceeds are deemed to be the ownership of the Defendant, and thus, the said transfer proceeds cannot be the subject of embezzlement.

② Even if the right of lease of the building at the above Ansan point is considered as the business property of the defendant and the victim, the conclusion of the lease contract under the sole name of the defendant constitutes a trust under the name of the contract, and thus, the refusal by the defendant, the trustee, to return the proceeds

③ In light of the fact that the victim’s failure to pay a difference to the point of view that the victim caused the risk of being subject to a lawsuit for clarification from the lessor, etc., the victim renounced his/her right to the premium due to the transfer of the above point of view.

must be viewed.

④ The Defendant has invested more money than the victim, and used part of the money for the transfer of the above-point to repay the debt of the above-point store, and the victim is above.