The defendant shall be innocent.

A. The Defendant acquired the F’s right to operate the “Eel” (hereinafter “the instant telecom”) located in F, with the acquisition of television, computer, computer, monitor, cooling, and coffee, etc. (hereinafter “the instant goods”) indicated in the facts charged, and paid the price thereof.

In other words, the article of this case is owned by the defendant and cannot be the object of embezzlement.

Even if the Defendant did not acquire the ownership of the instant goods, the Defendant believed that he was his own possession, and thus did not have any intent to commit the crime of embezzlement of the said goods.

B. The Defendant did not possess the instant goods in the instant telecom.

(c)

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged of this case.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim C on the “Ecom” located in Do Government City from May 201; (b) from around around May 201, the Defendant: (c) sold 52 television 45,316,00 won purchased at the victim’s guest room in early 20 586 pent-type computers purchased at KRW 586 34,50,000 for 586 pent-type computers purchased at KRW 586 pent-type computer monitors purchased at KRW 34,00,000 for 10,650,000 for 21,610,000 won; and (d) embezzled goods purchased at KRW 10,20,000,000 for 10,000,000 won for 20,50,0000 won.

B. In full view of witness F, G’s statements, H’s statements, etc., the lower court determined that the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that the instant goods were disposed of at will.

On the other hand, the above facts charged were found guilty.

3. Determination on whether a deliberation was made

(a) proof of criminal facts in a criminal trial.