The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant obtained prior consent from the victim or C with respect to the disposition of the instant vehicle owned by the victim D (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) offered as security by C.

The Defendant requested E to keep the instant vehicle. Since E arbitrarily disposed of the instant vehicle, the Defendant does not constitute embezzlement.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, C, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, that the Defendant has not consented to the disposal of the vehicle.

“A consistent statement was made to the effect that Defendant India’s investigative agency consistently stated to the effect that “the Defendant did not obtain consent to the disposal of the instant vehicle” (the investigation record 1:104 pages, 2: 35 pages); (2) the Defendant transferred the possession of the instant vehicle to E under the circumstance that the Defendant was liable to pay approximately KRW 6 million to E; and (3) upon the Defendant’s consent on June 2014, the Defendant provided the instant vehicle to his own land as collateral with KRW 11,50,000,000,000, which was deducted from Defendant’s debt KRW 6,000,000,000,000 to the Defendant (the investigation record 1:61; 2: 37 pages); and (2) the Defendant sold the instant vehicle to F; and (4) the Defendant provided the instant vehicle to the Defendant or 35,000,0000 won with the loan of KRW 1,150,000,000 to the Defendant provided the instant vehicle as collateral.