All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding the fact that Defendant (1) was guilty of (the embezzlement for the victim N) (the actual disposal right of the vehicle (O) of the instant Spoot-type vehicle is Q Q. The liability amounting to KRW 2.4 million due to Q’s obligation to repay to the Defendant, and instead Q intended to purchase and sell the said vehicle as a collateral and to purchase the said money, and thus, it does not constitute embezzlement of the purchase price of the vehicle.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of the suspended sentence of six months) is too unreasonable.

나. 검사 (1) 사실 오인 ㈎ 피해자 I에 대한 횡령의 점 피고인 A와 피해자 I의 메시지 내역, 매매 위탁 계약서의 내용 등에 비추어 피해자 I의 진술 및 V가 경찰에서 한 진술( 번복 전의 진술 )에 신빙성이 높음에도 이와 달리 판단한 원심에 사실 오인의 위법이 있다.

㈏ 피해자 J에 대한 사기의 점 피고인 A의 범죄 전력 등에 비추어 피고인은 재정난에 시달리던 중 피해자 J의 차량이 타에 유통, 처분되어 찾을 수 없게 되고, 정상적으로 위탁매매를 해 주지 못하게 되더라도 어쩔 수 없다는 미필적 범의를 가지고 본 건 범행을 한 것임에도 이와 달리 판단한 원심에 사실 오인의 위법이 있다.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the owner of the instant Switzerland is recognized as N. The owner of the instant Switzerland, and the Defendant A can be recognized as having disposed of the instant Switzerland owned by the Victim N and embezzled by arbitrarily consuming the price. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is justifiable and there is no error of law of mistake of facts.

Therefore, this part of Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.

① The witness Q of the original instance trial found the place where he sold the instant Swiss vehicle, and Defendant A.