A. The Defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 800,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the lower judgment without the Defendant’s intention of embezzlement, but this cannot be deemed as a legitimate ground for appeal since the new assertion was filed after the lapse of the period for filing the appeal.

B. We examine the facts and circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, including the Defendant’s legal statement in the court below, the Defendant’s police statement in E, the investigation report (hereinafter “CCG GG Vice head”) and the facts and circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. In other words, the victim erroneously remitted KRW 1 million to the account in the mother B (H)’s name managed by the Defendant around April 7, 2015. The victim demanded that “the Defendant return money erroneously deposited” to the Defendant through the bank, etc., the Defendant transferred the above money to F. Nevertheless, the victim transferred the money to his/her father, the victim filed a lawsuit claiming unjust profits against B, and even during the lawsuit, the Defendant demanded the return of the above money to the Defendant, but the Defendant did not return the money, and thus, the Defendant did not have any error in the misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of this case is justified.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act of Korea, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle as to the unfair argument of sentencing, has the unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first trial.