All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (unfair sentencing) on the Defendant (eight months) is too unreasonable.

B. Inspection 1) The Defendant and the Victim Samsung Card Co., Ltd. entered the sale contract (18 km of investigation records) and written estimates (20 km of investigation records) at the time of entering into a lease contract with respect to the instant goods. The Defendant: (a) while holding the instant goods in custody: (b) 1 2 string automatic dryer (120 g) as security; (c) 1 string machines (50 g), 2 string machines (100 g), 300 g), 2 300 g), 2 3000 g), 2 3000 g), 405 mingle of automatic dryer (80 g), 4050 mingle of total value of the instant goods to be paid by the Defendant to the obligee; and (b) the lower court erred by misapprehending the Defendant’s total amount of the instant goods 400 million won x 4005 billion ming of value of the instant goods.

2) The above sentence committed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found that the Defendant embezzled the instant goods owned by the Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd., the market value of which is KRW 570 million, based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, cannot be acknowledged that the value of the instant goods is KRW 570 million, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge it. Rather, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the Defendant, determined that the value of the instant goods was KRW 83.6 million by considering the depreciation of the instant goods, based on the consideration of the evidence submitted by the Defendant.

The court below duly adopted and investigated.