A. As to the embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case (not guilty part of the judgment below), there was no right to oppose against the victim, such as commercial lien or concurrent performance defense that the Defendant could refuse to return the gold punishment in the instant case. Therefore, the victim’s failure to return the gold punishment in spite of the victim’s demand for return of the gold punishment in the instant case constitutes embezzlement, but the Defendant had the intent of embezzlement or of unlawful acquisition.

The judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the ground that it cannot be seen, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the judgment.

B. As long as the sentencing is found guilty of embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (a sum of KRW 5 million) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The reasoning of the court below's properly stated the assertion of mistake of fact, that is, ① there was a debt owed by the victim to the defendant for the payment of the goods, and there was a dispute over the amount. ② The victim was sentenced to a refund from the defendant after he paid the price of the goods to the defendant in the transfer transaction of this case

In the case of the U.S., there was no circumstance to regard the Defendant as one of the obligation to return the price for the goods in preference to the obligation to return the goods in preference to the obligation to return the price for the goods in question only in the case of the U.S. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s repayment of the price for the goods by the injured party was immediately returned to the injured party and

In the instant case where there is no circumstance to find out the circumstances, the sole evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant did not return the gold punishment of this case, and there was an intention to acquire the intent of embezzlement or unlawful acquisition, as the Defendant did not return it.

It is insufficient to view it as well, and there is no other evidence to recognize it (in criminal law, intentional perception of facts that meet the requirements for criminal punishment.