The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The money that the Defendant received from G is not only KRW 50 million but also KRW 30 million,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and the money received from G, but also the money that G voluntarily delivered to enter into a contract with a monopoly agency, and the Defendant only delivered the said money to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) (hereinafter “E”), and there was no fact that he received the said money from G.

(2) The Defendant, in the course of occupational embezzlement, delivered the sales proceeds of electronic tobacco sets received from G, the agency proceeds received from G, and the sales proceeds of liquid tobacco received from G to E representative director. Moreover, as the sales proceeds of liquid tobacco received from G were paid to employees as a major holiday bonus, etc., there was no fact that he arbitrarily embezzled each of the above goods or money under his occupational custody.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution in August, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, was required as the premium to be delivered to F, etc., by deceiving the victim G, and acquired it by deceiving the victim G, and according to each evidence of the lower court, it is recognized that the victim G deposited the down payment of KRW 50 million in the E account on December 3, 2010.

On the other hand, it was the victim that the defendant will bring some of the above 50 million won as the introduction fee.

Even if the above money does not affect the establishment of a crime of fraud against the whole amount.

In addition, according to each evidence of the court below, it is also recognized that the defendant did not deliver the above money to E representative director.

Electronic tobacco sets and liquid counseling services, which have been kept on duty.