A. In fact, the Defendants are not charged with embezzlement since they personally use some of the English funds financed by the Posstinghy from the Poshy fisheries union upon agreement with the victims.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (each fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the amount that the port fisheries union provided to the Defendants could not be used as an individual name because the use was set, and the Defendants knew of the above facts, the victims did not agree to the use of the money individually, and there was no prior notification from the Defendants, the court below's determination that the crime of embezzlement is established is just and acceptable, and there was no error in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the Defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of the fact that the Defendants returned all the amount of money used individually by the Defendants, that there was no record of exceeding the fine or that there was no change of circumstances in the sentencing of the lower court, and that there was no other reason to change the sentencing of the lower court, and all the conditions of sentencing including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances leading up to the commission of the crime, means and result, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable. The lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable as the Defendants asserted.