A. In determining the facts, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have had the intent of illegal acquisition of embezzlement against the Defendant, on the ground that: (a) the Defendant: (a) placed the instant Meald log in the instant case at the request of the victim E to sell it instead; (b) instead, F did not sell it but did not return it to G; and (c) the Defendant did not have the intent of unlawful acquisition of embezzlement.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of five million won) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant provided the list of the instant case which was kept by the victim E upon the request of the victim E, as a collateral to G where he was liable through F without the victim's consent, and that he did not comply with the victim's request to return the list of the case.

According to this fact, the defendant's intention of embezzlement is recognized as illegal acquisition, so this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Until the judgment on the argument of unfair sentencing is rendered, the Defendant did not return the list of the instant case to the victim, and the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim. Rather, the Defendant denied the instant crime and filed a complaint against F and received a conviction (Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2013Ma2315, Oct. 15, 2014) without accusation, and the Defendant was convicted of false accusation (Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2013Ma2315, Oct. 15, 2014). The value of the list of the instant case was 33,00,000 won, and the damage was not significant, and all other circumstances constituting the sentencing conditions specified in the records of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character, health, and health conditions, are considered as inappropriate.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.