A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant related to the crime of embezzlement on June 20, 201 was not entrusted with the sale of 2 points of J works from the injured party on June 20, 201, but purchased 16 million won again. As such, the Defendant disposed of such disposition.

Even if the defendant does not constitute a crime of embezzlement.

2) The Defendant, in relation to the crime of breach of trust on November 22, 201, lent KRW 20 million from the victim to offer as security each point of N 1 and M 1 respectively. However, upon the extension of the due date on May 22, 2012, upon the victim’s request on the extension of the due date, the Defendant offered a self-replace of KRW 50 million at the market price in lieu of the victim’s two points of the above forest as security. As such, the above 2 point was no longer a security, and thus, the Defendant disposed of it.

Even if the defendant does not constitute a crime of breach of trust.

3) At the time of borrowing money from the victim, the Defendant had sufficient possession of liability property, such as high-priced art works, including E buildings equivalent to KRW 2.2 billion at the market price, and continued to repay the interest on the loan until June 2013. Since the said E building’s remodeling construction cost increase due to the aggravation of economic circumstances, the Defendant did not have the intent to acquire money by deception.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant constituted a crime of embezzlement on the grounds that the first instance court’s disposal of 2 points (8, 10) of the J’s work kept in the line of duty can sufficiently be recognized that the Defendant was not re-purchased from the injured party, but was in possession upon entrustment of sale, and that the Defendant constituted a crime of embezzlement on duty.