A. Since there was an agreement between the victim and the victim to convert the above money into a deposit for the establishment of a pharmacy as the defendant received 50 million won as the name of the contract deposit and the misunderstanding of legal principles, the above money cannot be an object of embezzlement, and there was no criminal intent of embezzlement against the defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of suspended sentence on April) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the defendant's arbitrary use of the above money as a sales contract deposit and embezzlement can be sufficiently recognized. The defendant's assertion is without merit.

1) E consistently offers the said money as a sales contract deposit from the investigative agency to the court of the first instance, and thereafter states that there is no agreement to convert the said money into a deposit for the establishment of a pharmacy. In fact, E pays 50 million won as a deposit for the establishment of a pharmacy, in addition to the said money, as well as the said money, and 50 million won as a deposit for the establishment of a pharmacy. In concluding a lease contract with F, E pays 50 million won to the victim separately from those above, there is no reason to keep 50 million won as a deposit for the establishment of a pharmacy additionally.

3) Even according to the Defendant’s statement of the passbook, even if the Defendant received money from the victim, it was a situation in which most of the said money was transferred to another account under the pretext of payment, etc. while excluding the money claimed by the Defendant that employees embezzled. 4) As above, the Defendant did not have the right to hold the said money.