The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Victim Company is “D” (hereinafter “instant arrangement plant”).

() It is not entrusted to the defendant, but entrusted to the Dispute Resolution Council, so it cannot be deemed as a person who keeps another's property. Also, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone can only be recognized that the defendant embezzled the sales price of the instant placed plant, and the defendant cannot be deemed as a person who keeps another's property in the process of installing the instant placed plant. 2) The defendant individually bears the costs of KRW 60 million or KRW 800 million in the process of installing the instant placed plant, and disposed of the instant placed plant at the request of the representative G of the victim company, and thus, the defendant did not have the intent of embezzlement.

3) The Defendant deposited the sales price of the instant arrangement plant into the LAR, which is an affiliated company of the victim company, and the Defendant did not have any intent to obtain personal recognition, and thus there was no intent to obtain unlawful acquisition by the Defendant. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty, and there was an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. (b) The lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s punishment (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspension

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to a person who keeps another’s property, the subject of embezzlement under Article 355(1) of the relevant legal doctrine ought to be the person who keeps another’s property, and shall be determined by the Civil Act, the Commercial Act, and the other substantive law, whether it is another’s property. Inasmuch as custody in the crime of embezzlement refers to the possession of property through a consignment relationship, the custodian of property and the owner of property (or the person who holds another’s property) are legally or de facto consignment between them.