A. Defendant 1) The list of crimes in attached Form 1 of the judgment of the court below in misunderstanding of facts (hereinafter “the list of crimes”).

As to Nos. 1 and 18, the Defendant did not embezzled the remaining money exceeding KRW 400,00 in the case of 400,000 and 1.2 million in the case of 18 parts of the crime list, and the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of community service order, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

3) In relation to the part of the judgment below that found unfair compensation order, since the amount embezzled by the defendant is KRW 7,970,000,000, the compensation order for damages should be 7,970,000 won. (b) In full view of the evidence submitted, such as the victim's statement and the vehicle lease contract, the court below found the defendant to have leased the vehicle as stated in this part of the facts charged, received the actual rent from the lessee, and then arbitrarily consumed it. However, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the part of the 3 through 5 parts of the crime list and the 2, and 8 parts of the crime list.

2 The above-mentioned sentence of the lower court is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. In the lower court’s determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as that of this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court’s judgment under the title “the Defendant’s assertion and judgment on the Defendant

B. (1) In 4), the above argument was rejected by examining the judgment of the court below in detail, and comparing the above judgment with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts, and the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is not erroneous.