The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, received a request from C to pay his/her debt on behalf of the principal by using his/her own deposit and insurance money and received a delivery of church donation. At the request of C after C’s death (hereinafter “the deceased”), the deceased’s medical expenses (4,166,350 won), funeral expenses (4,672,450 won), church donation (2,000 won), borrowed money (G28 million won), J 8 million won, S 5 million won, K 10 million won, and L1,00 million won (M3 million won), nursing expenses (M3 million won), the deceased’s medical expenses (1,300,000 won), the deceased’s management of electricity and taxes (1,610,300,300 won), and at least 964,974,986,964,700 won were not charged with embezzlement.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The prosecutor must prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition of relevant legal principles, and such evidence should be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not more likely to have any reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, even if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant is doubtful.

Even if there is no choice but to determine the interest of the defendant as the interest of the defendant. However, if there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the defendant used the money to use it for a fund different from the above money, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant used the money for a personal purpose. Rather, it is hard to prove that the defendant used the money for the personal purpose.