A. The money deposited in the passbook is not the victim but the money deposited in the passbook in light of the circumstances where the opening of the passbook by the defendant's name bank was made by the defendant, not the victim C.

Although it is not so, the defendant thought that his money is D's money, there is no intention to commit embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence examined, the fact that the money deposited in the Defendant’s passbook bank (hereinafter “instant passbook”) is the money deposited by the Defendant Non-Party D, and the victim C, not the Defendant.

In addition, in full view of the circumstances properly explained by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was aware that he was using the passbook from the time when he was asked to open the passbook from D.

The defendant's assertion of facts cannot be accepted.

B. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the prosecutor's unfair argument of sentencing.

In light of all the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair, even if it is deemed unfair, in light of the aforementioned circumstances.

We do not accept the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing.

3. In conclusion, all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.