A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, convicted the remainder of the Defendant who neglected the following circumstances.

1) The Defendant, who received KRW 21 million from the injured party, did not specify the purpose as the bid bond for the auction, and the injured party agreed to the effect that “The Defendant shall refund the above KRW 15 million to the injured party on May 15, 2014 because it was delayed on June 20, 2014, before the date of the auction of the instant commercial building, and the injured party demanded the return of the above KRW 21 million without reasonable grounds, which was before the date of the auction of the instant commercial building. The Defendant refused the return of KRW 15 million among them, and the injured party and the injured party agreed to the effect that “The Defendant shall refund the above KRW 15 million to the injured party on May 15, 2014, because it was delayed on June 20, 2014 as the date was anticipated to be returned by the Defendant on June 14, 2014.”

B. At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant was sufficiently willing to return KRW 15 million to the victim, and the Defendant would have agreed with the victim by returning it in the first instance.

Considering the fact that the defendant's sentence (4 million won) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, considering the fact that the defendant's punishment (4 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable, due to the delay disorder, it is difficult to move freely and economically, the same criminal record is only twice, the criminal record of embezzlement is not committed, and the criminal record of suspended execution is only once.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as well as the materials submitted by the defense counsel, the Defendant’s use of KRW 21 million, which was delivered by the injured party.