A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the part of the charge of embezzlement of the articles of possession of KRW 20 million among the charges of this case by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendant embezzled the bags of the victim left in the taxi, but did not contain cash of KRW 20 million.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the grounds for appeal are identical to the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s determination as to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine. The lower court rejected the allegation in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant’s argument” of the judgment.

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant embezzled the said money together with the bank.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

(1) As alleged by the Defendant, there was a statement that is not consistent or consistent with the victim, G, and H’s purpose of possessing KRW 20 million among the statements, storage status, shape, etc. However, considering the time interval between the time of the instant case and the time of the statement, it is difficult to view that it is a circumstance to doubt the credibility of the entire statement made by the victim, G, and H as a whole.

(2) The injured party was stolen in cash of KRW 20 million or was removed from the bank before the cab of the Defendant.

otherwise kept.

There are no circumstances to suspect.

B. As to the part of the embezzlement of a room other than cash, the Defendant’s wrongful determination of the sentencing is against his mistake, and there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine after 1980.