The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts1) The Defendant was the actual owner and operator of D, who was the collecting and processing company of waste writing from November 2006 to March 201, 201, and I and K were merely D’s investors, and income from the disposition of waste writing taken out in the course of handling waste writing is merely the Defendant’s personal ability, and it constitutes money without any reason to deposit in the company. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged premised on the Defendant’s arbitrary consumption and embezzlement, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. 2) In addition, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment, by misunderstanding the facts that the Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 240 hours of community service, imposed by the lower court, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① At the end of 2003, I received investment in H by the Defendant at the time when she met the Defendant, and I invested approximately KRW 100 million in the amount of KRW 100 million to the Defendant from around 2006.

(2) The Defendant is a new investor on November 2006, while he did not pay I any specific profit from the investment by 2006.