The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant was operated by the Defendant that violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

Although E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) and the Victim Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Modern Co., Ltd.”) have arbitrarily disposed of 1824 tons of steel nearby 1,824 tons (hereinafter referred to as “the instant steel bars”) under the storage consignment contract to another customer, they provided the victim Hyundai Steel with security equivalent to approximately KRW 3 billion higher than the value of the instant steel bars, and only within the scope of the said security was supplied by the victim Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd., Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “E”), there was no intent to commit embezzlement.

2) The Defendant was an intent or ability to supply the steel bars agreed upon at the time of receiving the steel bars from the victim H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”).

In that sense, the value of the collateral provided by E in the case of the credit transaction is low, and there was no intention to commit fraud against the defendant, as it did not supply the above steel to the wind to unfairly recover the root.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the evidence of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) was sufficiently secured to the extent that the security offered by E to the Hyundai Steel at the time of the instant case exceeds the value of the instant steel bars.

It is difficult to see the Defendant’s arbitrary disposal of the instant iron bars under the recognition of dolusence of this point.

It is reasonable to view it.

(1) There were two transaction methods of E and the victim's modern file. First, E purchases and takes place place place for sale from the victim's modern file to its customer.