The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The fourth TV set out in the judgment of the court below in the summary of the grounds for appeal (hereinafter referred to as “TV of this case”) is owned by the defendant who donated the victim E to the defendant as a opening gift, and thus, the defendant’s selling the said TV to a third party does not constitute embezzlement, but is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of embezzlement.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below, the defendant leased and operated the restaurant in the judgment of the court below, which is owned by the victim of G, who had his own words, free of charge, and the defendant set up and operated the television in this case so that the above restaurant customers can directly see the cafeteria, and the defendant continued to install and operate the restaurant in the restaurant even after the completion of the operation of the restaurant, and the defendant did not say that he would dispose of the television in this case even though he would not make the victim go through laundry or harassment. Considering the above circumstances, it is reasonable to see that the television in this case was leased free of charge to the defendant, and therefore, there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts in the judgment of the court below.

Ultimately, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.