A. The construction cost received from misunderstanding of facts or construction by misunderstanding of legal principles is not owned by the victim, but owned by (i)D or (ii)C, and even if not, since G is not a party to the transfer contract of this case and a transferee of D, G is in the position of keeping each of the construction cost of this case. In addition, the defendant used each of the construction cost of this case in another field with prior understanding from the victim in advance for construction cost, etc. In addition, the defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of embezzlement. If the defendant calculates the embezzlement amount of this case to be recognized as embezzlement, value-added tax, incentives, bill discount fees, etc. to be borne by the victim should be excluded within the scope of damage amount.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles: (a) Money received by a person entrusted with administrative affairs involving receipt of money from a third party for the mandator on the ground of the act is owned by the mandator at the same time as the money was entrusted for the mandator, barring any special circumstances like the purpose or purpose; and (b) the delegated person is in custody for the mandator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1923, Nov. 24, 1995; 2003Do1741, Jun. 24, 2003; 2004Do134, Mar. 12, 2004); and (c) comprehensively taking into account the following facts and circumstances recognized by the prosecutor’s evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant was in a position of custody for a victim; and (d) the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he has voluntarily consumed the money as indicated in the judgment).