The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-misunderstanding facility loans are directly paid to the contractor rather than the contractor, so the victim F Co., Ltd., a contract for H (hereinafter H) operated by the Defendant, the recipient of the facility loans of this case KRW 700 million, is the victim company (hereinafter “victim”)

(B) Although the Defendant’s withdrawal and use of the portion equivalent to the amount of the claim for construction cost as H’s ownership, the crime of embezzlement is not established, the lower court convicted of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s unfair sentencing is so excessive that the sentencing is unfair (to be determined within the extent of supplement of the grounds for appeal specified in each of the reasons for appeal filed on August 25, 2016, the reasons for appeal filed by the defense counsel on September 2, 2016, the reasons for appeal filed on July 26, 2016, and the reasons for appeal filed on August 4, 2016, and the reasons for appeal filed on August 4, 2016, and the defense counsel’s assertion not entirely stated in each of the reasons for appeal filed on July 26, 2016 and August 4, 2016 are not separately determined).2.

A. In the crime of embezzlement as to the assertion of mistake of fact, the term “storage” includes not only the case where the property is under de facto control, but also the case where the control or disposition under the law is in a position possible.

The custody does not necessarily have to be established by a contract such as lending and borrowing, lease, delegation, etc., and is also established by business management, customs, cooking, and good faith principle, and even in cases where a person entrusted with the custody of another person’s money and deposited it in a financial institution such as a bank, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do16315, Dec. 12, 2013; 2014Do11244, Feb. 12, 2015). Moreover, the same applies to the money that a person entrusted with the management of administrative affairs involving the receipt of money received from a third party for the mandator based on the said act and received by the delegating.