The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) Fraud 1) The Defendant merely received KRW 150 million from the victim G to set up a right to lease on a deposit basis, and did not receive the said money as a deposit for lease on a deposit basis. 2) The Defendant, from November 2011, agreed to terminate a contract with the victim M&A and are in a lessor’s position.

Since the Defendant, in consultation with the above victim, deducted the rent from the profit to be paid, it cannot be readily concluded that he/she refused the return of the profit with the intent of unlawful acquisition.

B. The sentencing of the first instance court (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) on the accused is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the circumstances and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court, as stated in the judgment of the first instance court, as to the assertion of mistake of facts, even if the Defendant received money from the victim G as the deposit money, the third floor building in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H (hereinafter “instant building”) is deemed as the victim G even if the Defendant received money from the victim G as the deposit money

(2) Although the Defendant had no intent or ability to make a registration of chonsegwon on a deposit basis, deceiving the Victim G and received KRW 150 million from the Victim G is recognized. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit. ① The Defendant asserts that the Defendant demanded the investigation agency to enter the “full deposit amount” in the business partnership agreement as it has been lent KRW 150 million from his mother. However, the Victim G submitted to the investigation agency a new bank account in the name of the victim, which is the basis for the withdrawal of cashier’s checks. ② M stated in the first instance court that the Defendant said the instant building as his own building. ② At the first instance court, M, the first instance court duly adopted the embezzlement and recognized the following facts based on the evidence.