A. Defendant 1 was aware that Defendant 1’s claim for the return of the deposit on the deposit basis was not offered as collateral for transfer to H (hereinafter “H”), but was transferred. As above, Defendant Company transferred Defendant 1’s claim for the return of the deposit on the deposit basis for the victim company, and Defendant Company transferred 1,000 tons of scrap metal to V Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “V”), and Defendant agreed to receive sales proceeds of the said scrap metal 1,000 tons from V, with the right to dispose of 1,00 tons of scrap metal owned by the victim in order to preserve the claim for the return of the deposit on the deposit basis.

It is not a household.

Even if the Defendant was delegated with all of the powers regarding the instant scrap metal business by the victim company.

Therefore, the defendant arbitrarily used the sale price of 1,000 tons of the above scrap metal.

Even if embezzlement is not established, embezzlement is not established.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, first, we examine the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s claim for return of deposit on the deposit was transferred not to offer the Defendant’s claim for transfer as security to H

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, Defendant’s claim for the return of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit is offered as collateral for transfer to H, and the Defendant was also aware of such circumstances.

A) The monetary consumption lending contract prepared on January 18, 2012 between the victim company and H stated that “the Defendant shall offer the right to claim the return of deposit on a deposit basis to the owner of a deposit on a deposit basis in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M. M. M. 102 Dong 3205 as collateral for transfer” and the acquisition of the credit made between the Defendant and H on the same day also constitutes a victim under the contract.