A. Defendant 1) In fact-finding Defendant 1: (a) borrowed money that the Defendant received from the victim on August 8, 2013; (b) this is supported by the fact that the victim did not have received any document stating the amount, amount, goods, etc. different from the other transaction; and (c) the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the money; and (d) the Defendant was guilty of the charge that the Defendant received 42 million won as the import price for the de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto

B. The facts charged that H’s statements that are contrary to the public prosecutor’s statement and the victim and F’s statement are difficult to believe as they are; that H urged the performance of obligation against F, who is an employee, but this is related to the Defendant, which is the actual representative; and that F, if the already sold goods are entered in the list, if it is required to pay the price; and thus, F, given that F’s statement that the victim transferred to the victim is correct, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant embezzled the sum of KRW 30,000,000,000, total market value of the victim’s age and KRW 752 punishment and Aldinibs sand, which is equivalent to KRW 40,71,000,000,

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous and erroneous.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the grounds of appeal by the defendant 1) The defendant argued that the above mistake of facts is identical to the above argument in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail. In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the decision of the court below is legitimate (the defendant submitted data that the defendant bears the interest interest of the loan at the court below).