The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant temporarily remitted the damaged company's funds to the defendant's personal account in order to avoid compulsory execution against the damaged company of anti-do Construction, and returned them again to the damaged company's account after the risk of compulsory execution has ceased to exist, and the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of the facts charged of this case even though the defendant did not have the intent of unlawful acquisition.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, even in the lower court’s determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

The lower court, in full view of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, based on the title of “determination on the intent of unlawful acquisition” and the evidence adopted by the evidence, returned considerable money after the prosecution by the Defendant.

Even if the intent of illegal acquisition can be fully recognized.

The defendant's argument was rejected.

Based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following circumstances, which can be additionally acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, namely, ① the Defendant, upon preparing the “written waiver and settlement of construction works” from the victimized Company on March 31, 2014 (the 98th page of the evidence record), was engaged in collection activities differently from the above written statement. However, the above “written waiver and settlement of accounts” is based on the ground that the Defendant transferred approximately KRW 1/3 out of the public fraud funds paid by the anti-do Construction, to its account, and then the subcontractor’s subcontractor’s headquarters was found to be the Defendant’s headquarters on April 31, 2014.