The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal, or misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant initially established a long-term relationship with G, the owner of the land and building located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). Based on this, the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement with J, the de facto controller of the F in charge of the agreement to operate the restaurant in the instant real estate, and agreed that the Defendant would incur a certain amount of money out of the operating income and would use it as entertainment expenses for G in order to continue to maintain the lease agreement entered into with G.

As such, the Defendant used the money received from the victimized Company as entertainment expenses for G, and as a result, the victimized Company was able to operate the restaurant in the instant real estate without changing the terms and conditions of the lease for a period of not less than 13 years and gain a lot of profits from the restaurant without changing the terms and conditions of the lease, and thus, the victimized Company did not have any intention to obtain

The substance of the instant case is that the Defendant and the FF agreed to use the funds for entertainment expenses necessary for the stable rental of the instant real estate, and the Defendant kept the funds, and as long as the Defendant used the funds for the actual damage company, the intent of unlawful acquisition is not recognized.

The defendant only reported as the nominal representative director of the damaged company, and only approved the formal approval, and all of the funding affairs were entirely conducted by the F.

Therefore, the defendant was not in the custody of the victim company's funds.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of embezzlement of the damaged company’s funds among the selective facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding of facts.

The sentencing of the court below is unfair (two years of imprisonment and suspension of execution).