A. As to the part of the judgment of the court below that acquitted (the embezzlement among the facts charged in this case), the Defendant, in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the victim, should be deemed to have embezzled the said apartment by arbitrarily establishing a collateral security right in Daegu North-gu G apartment (108 Dong 106, 106 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (4 months of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. As to the embezzlement of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant at the time of the trial of the prosecution, the prosecutor’s amendment of the indictment constitutes the crime of embezzlement, and the name of the crime alternatively, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 3 of the facts charged as follows.

B. (1) As mentioned in the paragraph, an application for amendment of a bill of amendment was filed with the effect that the amendment was added, and this court permitted it, and the selective charge was also subject to a trial. We examine all the charges that were subject to a trial by the lower court before the amendment and the charges that were alternatively changed.

3. Determination

A. On November 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 25 million from November 11, 2015 and offered the apartment as security; and (b) embezzled the establishment of a collateral security agreement in the name of H with the maximum amount of KRW 33,00,000,000 for the claim against H, while the Defendant jointly owned the apartment of this case by investing KRW 20,000,000,000 for each of the victims D and the Defendant owned it; and (c) provided the apartment as security; and (d) embezzled H with the establishment of the collateral security agreement in the name of H.

2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court’s judgment did not jointly own the instant apartment by the Defendant and the victim D.