The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of misunderstanding of facts (the point of occupational embezzlement Nos. 4 and 5 in the separate sheet of crime No. 5 in the judgment of the court below) 4 and 5 occupational embezzlements listed in the separate sheet of crime (hereinafter “the table”) indicated in the judgment of the court below, each damage amount is recognized only 2.64,00 won (No. 4, G) and 1870,000 won (No. 5 and No. 95) that the tenant and S remitted to the defendant. However, the court below erred by finding the entire amount of each embezzlement listed in this part of the facts charged on the sole basis of the victim B’s assertion

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) from around 2008 to around March 21, 201, the Defendant: (b) from around 2008, managed the Defendant’s title C building G and H with the delegation of duties, such as the conclusion of a lease agreement and the management of rent; (c) the delegated management contract was terminated on or around October 26, 2016. From May 9, 2009 to March 21, 2013, the Defendant was voluntarily consumed for personal purposes during his/her occupational storage without obtaining KRW 5,813,00 from L, R and U; (d) from November 11, 2011 to November 6, 2013; and (e) the lower court’s determination that the Defendant did not lawfully acquire KRW 29,750 for each of the following facts charged for the following personal purposes and did not lawfully acquire the entire amount of embezzlement from S to the Defendant for each of the following reasons.

(1) As alleged by the Defendant, each embezzlement described in this part of the facts charged is basically the victim’s statement.