The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below in the misapprehension of legal principles (the embezzlement of deposits in the name of E), after transferring KRW 20,126,178 from the account under the name of E to the “D” account operated by the Defendant, the Defendant was not subject to any disposition, and the said money was not memoryed. However, on November 2014, the Defendant responded that the Defendant confirmed the Defendant’s interim settlement retirement pay to M around KRW 20 million as a result of confirming the Defendant’s interim settlement of retirement pay, and the Defendant demanded that M pay KRW 20 million with the interim settlement payment of retirement pay to M, and received the money from the Defendant as a personal passbook.

After that, the Defendant returned the said money.

In light of such circumstances, the Defendant did not intentionally embezzled E’s money with the intent of unlawful acquisition.

[Defendant’s defense counsel stated on December 15, 2016, when the appellate court’s first trial date was not timely filed, that “the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles or misapprehension of the legal principles is to be made to the whole person.” On January 24, 2017, the Defendant’s defense counsel argued to the purport of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crimes of Article 2 of the judgment below (the point of embezzlement of deposits in I’s name) in the last pleading on the trial date on January 24, 2017.

However, the scope of the appellate court’s trial is, in principle, limited by the statement of reasons for appeal submitted by the defendant or his defense counsel within the statutory period (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1466, Apr. 9, 2015, etc.), and the above assertion is not a legitimate reason for appeal). (B) The punishment that the court below rendered unfair judgment for sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement on the part of a judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle

person means an intention to dispose of the same property of another person in violation of his or her duties as that of his or her own possession with the aim of seeking the benefit of himself or a third party (Supreme Court).