The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The fact that the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, could be recognized that he disposed of the machinery, but this is an act for the benefit of the victim or G, and thus, there was an intent to obtain unlawful acquisition

subsection (b) of this section.

B. Improper sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service work of two hundred hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On July 5, 2010, the Defendant of the instant facts charged: (a) received a proposal to change the name of G business operator operated by the victim in the name of the Defendant’s name because he/she was in the position to be seized from the victim F to the creditors; and (b) approved the proposal to change the name of G business operator in the name of the Defendant, thereby becoming a representative in the name of G.

The Defendant embezzled the said machinery by arbitrarily disposing of the said machinery around April 11, 2013 to H, as indicated in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment, while keeping the said machinery for the victim pursuant to the foregoing agreement, and by arbitrarily disposing of the machinery equivalent to KRW 7,521,00,00 in total of the market price, as indicated in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment.

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on the basis of each of the evidence in its holding.

B) In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the court below, namely, ① the Defendant did not take over G on the 12th trial date of the court below. ② Accordingly, the Defendant, who is merely a representative in the name, disposes of the above industry secret machinery without the victim’s delegation, constitutes an act of arbitrarily disposing of the property owned by another person, as it is its own possession; ③ insofar as the Defendant arbitrarily disposes of the property owned by another person, such disposal act is used for the benefit of the victim, such as satisfaction of the victim’s obligation.