A. Fact-misunderstanding G puts down a wall owned by the victim on the top top of the Defendant’s vehicle operation, but the Defendant was forgotten with this fact, and thereafter there was a mistake and use of the body card owned by the victim as his own. Thus, there was no intention for embezzlement of occupied separated objects.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the Defendant visited the victim and G to purchase the solution in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju where G works for the victim and G; (ii) G was unable to install the solution in the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the front road; (iii) the Defendant was aware that the above wall was the Defendant; (iv) the Defendant used the vehicle without returning it to G while driving the vehicle; and (v) in light of the fact that the above wall was used the body card owned by the victim but not settled due to shortage of balance, the Defendant could recognize the fact that the cash, body card, etc. located on the above wall and the wall were well aware that it was the property of the victim’s possession.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts is without merit.

B. The fact that the Defendant did not have the same criminal history as that of the Defendant’s judgment on the unfair determination of sentencing is favorable circumstances, but the Defendant’s failure to reflect the instant crime is disadvantageous.

In addition, considering the fact that there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment and the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s sentence is nonexistent.