2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors, misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant deposited money deposited in the bank account in the name of the Defendant in China from January 201 to August 201 of the same year, is owned by Chinese business operators who opened the game item sales account in the name of the Defendant for the game item sales business, and the Defendant embezzled it by arbitrarily transferring it to another account in his/her own use, and even though the Defendant recognized some embezzlement by the prosecution, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on embezzlement and misunderstanding of the facts charged in the instant case, thereby acquitted the Defendant.

3. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant from January 8, 2011 to the same year.

8. As to the facts charged that, until around 26.2, the defendant embezzled 142,596,90 won under the name of the defendant who deposited the account in the national bank account under the name of the defendant who transferred the above account to the wife F, and the name of the defendant who lent the account from F, on a total of 60 occasions, the defendant embezzled 142,596,900 won under the name of the Chinese game items company's possession, on the premise that the Chinese game items company entrusted the money deposited in the above account. However, if the money deposited in the above account was deposited in the entrusted custody by the above business entity, whether the money deposited in the above account was deposited in the entrusted custody, if so, whether the amount was much, whether the entrusted custody relationship was formed between the defendant and the above business entity, and whether the above business entity was established between F and the above business entity, the defendant is the custodian.