A. In relation to the embezzlement of the instant facts charged by the misunderstanding of legal principles, the ownership and possession of the machinery at the time when the instant fluid presses (hereinafter “the instant machines”) were disposed of on January 8, 2009 (hereinafter “the instant embezzlement”), and even if the Defendant disposed of it, it constitutes a requirement for embezzlement since both ownership and possession were disposed of.

In addition, if the machinery of this case was disposed of by one auction procedure, it is difficult to see that the criminal intent of the defendant exists.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) misunderstanding of the facts admitted facts; (b) the statement of the witness H in the fifth trial record of the lower court; (c) the statement of the police statement of H in the second police interrogation record of the Defendant; and (d) the investigation report (Evidence No. 4); (d) the transaction agreement (Evidence No. 4 Book No. 7); (e) acceptance certificate (Evidence No. 4 Book No. 8); (d) the receipt of the evidence (Evidence No. 4 Book No. 10); (e) the payment letter attached to the accusation (Evidence No. 4 Book No. 10 page 4); and (e) the payment letter attached to the accusation (Evidence No. 10, 11 of the Evidence No. 4 Book No. 4).

A) On March 12, 2007, the Defendant, who had operated the machine manufacturing business under the trade name of “G”, entered into a contract with H to the victim I to manufacture and supply the instant machine in the actual price of KRW 40 million (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B) On April 30, 2007, the Defendant supplied the instant machinery to the victim’s side, while being paid a sum of KRW 40 million around that time.

C) The Defendant who did not comply with the order of the victim.