The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) misunderstanding of facts: Embezzlement embezzlement: the Defendant’s 15 million won, which terminated the lease contract and received at around May 201, was permitted to be used for the promotion of the charnel project by borrowing 3 million UN from the victim on August 30, 2011; thus, it is not arbitrarily used. As to the fraud, the Defendant merely told the victim to be repaid upon the success of the charnel house project, and did not borrow money from the victim with the payment period fixed, and did not lend money from the victim with the interest rate of 3% per annum as claimed by the victim. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing: Even if a person is found guilty of domestic affairs, the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the argument of mistake of facts. The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is as follows: (a) the defendant was lawfully adopted and investigated by the court below; (b) the defendant first became aware of the victim on May 2009; (c) the defendant did not have any special property or income; and (d) the defendant was in a very difficult economic situation because he failed to make an investment in the immediately preceding 2008; and (b) the defendant was in liquidation of the victim's Dtel around May 201 and received KRW 15 million; and (c) the defendant was delegated by the victim on the process of safekeeping or processing of the above security deposit; and (d) the defendant was in contact with the victim on August 30, 201 with the victim on the contact with the victim on March 30, 201, because there was no problem between the victim and the victim, and the defendant did not have to pay the money directly to him at the time of his refusal to do so.