The amount stated in the decision of the court below is the money that the complainant and the defendant agreed that the defendant will be compensated for the expenses incurred in advance by the complainant.

However, the complainant erroneously remitted money to the account under the name of the representative of H.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant’s embezzlement cannot be deemed as embezzlement, since he/she contacted the Defendant with “H” and used the said money by return.

C. Nevertheless, as the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the facts charged in this case are found guilty (the defendant alleged that the aforementioned money was aimed at obtaining the preservation of expenses incurred in advance in relation to the operation of the business from the complainant, such as the summary of the grounds for appeal from the investigative agency to the trial of the party, but it is not consistent with the statement on the details of expenses incurred in advance by the defendant, as well as failed to submit materials supporting the disbursement of expenses). Accordingly, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.