A. The crime of embezzlement is not established since the pressure of the instant case of mistake of facts is old and old and the victim E transferred its ownership to the defendant without compensation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and examined the allegation of mistake of facts, namely, the victim E merely requested the Defendant to repair the relevant hydrotension from the investigation stage to the court of the lower court’s trial, and there is no little doubt that the Defendant would be unable to repair the hydrotension, or that he would have a large repair cost, and the Defendant would not transfer the ownership of the said hydrotension to the Defendant without compensation. The witness G also stated to the purport that “The instant hydrotension is removed and removed from the mechanical parking lot and function normally before the removal,” and the witness G also stated to the effect that “The victim was aware that there was no economic pressure on the part of the Defendant during the investigation agency and its repair costs,” in light of the fact that each of the above evidence was stated to the effect that “I would have been the victim’s credibility and repair.”