A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (as to embezzlement in the judgment of the court below), the Defendant borrowed KRW 40 million from his father C as the purchase fund for housing, and thus the Defendant’s right to ownership and disposal of the said money is not the crime of embezzlement.

In addition, the Defendant transferred KRW 26 million to another account in order to prevent the Defendant from arbitrarily using KRW 14 million out of the said money deposited in the new bank account under the name of E (hereinafter “instant account”) and from using the remaining KRW 26 million at will. Therefore, there was no intent of embezzlement, since the Defendant transferred KRW 26 million to the other account.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a punishment of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is acknowledged as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) the victim and C consistently stated that they received money from the investigative agency to the lower court to have been lent by the victim’s 40 million won, and (ii) the Defendant borrowed 40 million won from C to the lower court, but C did not lend 40 million won from the investigative agency to the lower court’s court to the Defendant. However, C did not have any authority to dispose of the above 40 million won; (iii) the Defendant arbitrarily used 14 million won out of the 40 million won deposited into the instant account; and (iv) the Defendant transferred 26 million won out of the 40 million won deposited into the instant account to another account to the prosecutor’s office at the time of investigating the victim and 26 million won out of the remaining 26 million won to prevent the Defendant from arbitrarily using the remaining 26 million won.

The next day without permission of the victim and C.