A. Fact-finding 1) The Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) did not reach 2.1 billion won for the victim, and the Defendant did not engage in embezzlement by using the real estate proceeds, etc. on behalf of the victim with the consent of the victim, or did not have an intention of embezzlement, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges. The lower court erred in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The Defendant was guilty of this part of the charges because the Defendant was in breach of trust by mistake of facts. The Defendant did not exchange the Defendant with the victim of Seocho-gu M apartment 601 (hereinafter the instant M apartment) and the Seoul Seocho-gu AF apartment 3 and 501 (hereinafter the instant AF apartment) owned by the victim, but did not receive the purchase price because the Defendant did not sell the instant M apartment to the victim, and there was no fact that the Defendant had been no sales price for the instant M apartment. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate on the ground that the sentencing is too inappropriate.

(2) The court below's decision on the grounds of appeal 2.2.

A. Judgment on the argument of mistake of facts 1) The following circumstances, i.e., the victim, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes