The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In determining the facts, the Defendant: (a) obtained the consent of the owners of C commercial buildings (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”); and (b) obtained the installation of a mobile relay tower on the instant commercial rooftop from each of the above companies; and (c) received the transfer of each of the rents and relay towers usage fees from each of the above companies; and (d) did not use all of the said money in the construction cost, etc. for the instant commercial buildings; and (e) did not use it arbitrarily for the Defendant’s personal purpose, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant was working for the instant shopping district from around 2003 to 2012; and (b) the complainant’s side did not bring evidentiary materials, such as receipts used for the instant shopping district construction cost, and the Defendant could not prove the place of use as a whole because he did not return them; (c) the penalty imposed by the lower court (five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The prosecutor must prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement. The evidence should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not more likely to have any reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to determine the profit of the defendant as the interest of the defendant. However, there is insufficient data to recognize that the defendant was used in the use of the defendant's assertion, such as the defendant's failure to explain his whereabouts or the use place, or disclosure of the funds used in the use place claimed by the defendant are appropriated for other funds.