A. The fact that the Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, sells a multimond unit of KRW 4.8 million as indicated in the fact-finding, sells three multimond unit of KRW 4.8 million, takes three multimond as security, and uses 2 million. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant paid the multimond sales proceeds by means of a card on February 17, 2013, which was before the instant complaint was filed, and repaid the multimond sales proceeds by means of a card, and returned the three points of the multimond unit of KRW 3 as security, there was no intent to commit embezzlement.

B. The lower court’s sentence (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below also asserted the same facts as the reasons for appeal, and the court below held that the defendant intentionally disposed of the Damond and repaid or returned it as above, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant's argument is groundless since it is reasonable to view that the defendant intentionally disposed of the Damond, but could have discovered the Damond and paid it as above, in light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated in light of the records, the court below's examination was conducted three times before and after the second inventory examination was conducted, and that the defendant sold or offered it as security. < Amended by Act No. 2007, Mar. 1, 2008; Act No. 20044, Dec. 31, 2006>

Furthermore, the defendant.