A. Defendant 1 used money as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and provided H with a registration of establishment of the right to collateral security.

Even if the victim did not know it to the victim at the time or did not go against the purpose of the business, it does not constitute a crime of embezzlement.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The defendant asserted that the facts of the defendant were erroneous, but the court below rejected the above assertion by giving a detailed statement of the decision.

The intention of illegal acquisition in embezzlement

The crime of embezzlement is established when the intent to return, compensate, or preserve the property of another person in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party is his/her own possession, and even if there is an intention to return, compensate, or preserve it later, it does not interfere with recognizing the intent to acquire the crime of embezzlement. Thus, even if the person who committed the crime of embezzlement has a separate monetary claim against the owner of the property, such circumstance alone does not affect the establishment of the crime of embezzlement unless there are special circumstances, such as where set-off was made before the crime of embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9871, Jun. 14, 2012). In light of the legal principles, even if the person who committed the crime of embezzlement has a separate monetary claim against the owner of the property, such circumstance alone does not affect the establishment of the crime of embezzlement.

Even if such circumstance alone does not interfere with the establishment of embezzlement, and in addition, the above judgment of the court below is just in full view of the circumstances properly stated by the court below.