The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) did not constitute embezzlement, such as having had no intent to make embezzlement and refusing to return it.

In other words, although the Defendant intended to return the goods entrusted by the victim due to their normal distribution difficulties, the victim refused to return the goods, and the E, who was in custody of the goods re-entrusted by the Defendant, was arbitrarily disposed of during the time when the victim refused to return the goods.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to mistake of facts and embezzlement.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court.

The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, including C, F, and E’s written statement in the lower court, found the following facts and circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant borrowed KRW 3 million from E and delivered some clothes, opening feed, etc. among the goods entrusted by the victim for sale (hereinafter “the instant goods”), ② the Defendant attempted to contact the Defendant as agreed by the victim was not paid the sales proceeds as agreed, ② the Defendant was aware of the address of the Defendant’s office and confirmed some of the goods; ③ the Defendant did not pay the sales proceeds or return the instant goods to the victim even after the contact; ④ the Defendant did not sell all the instant goods to the victim; ④ there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant requested the return of the goods to the victim before the victim filed a complaint; ② the Defendant entrusted the resale of the instant goods to E.

E.