A. The Defendant did not extend the payment date of the Promissory Notes of this case, and only recovered the Promissory Notes from I in accordance with the intent of the certificates of custody prepared by I. As such, the Defendant did not embezzled the Promissory Notes of this case.

(b)the sentence sentenced by the first instance court (five million won in penalty) is too unreasonable;

2. The first instance court rendered a judgment of innocence as to the fraud among the facts charged in the instant case, and rendered a judgment of conviction as to the embezzlement, and only the Defendant appealed as to the aforementioned guilty portion.

Therefore, since the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive that the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal, the judgment of the court is limited to the guilty part among the judgment of the court of first instance.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the assertion of mistake, I received promissory notes from the Defendant as collateral and borrowed money as collateral, and traded them in the form of collecting and delivering them to the Defendant before the payment date. N received money from I as collateral and received interest from I. At the arrival of the payment date of promissory notes, N extended the payment date of the promissory notes with interest accrued from I or received new promissory notes from I. In this process, the Defendant issued through I around April 9, 2014, and the payment date of the promissory notes was at a par value of 40,000,00 won with face value of 40,000,000 won with face value as of May 9, 2014; and the payment of the promissory notes at a discount of 220,000,000 won with face value as of the payment date, and each of the said promissory notes was delivered to the Defendant respectively within 30,000,000 won.