The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Defendant 1) Of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below, the embezzlement part among the criminal facts as stated in the judgment below, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement on the machinery (hereinafter “the instant machinery”) stated in this part of the facts charged with the victim company (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant and terminated the instant lease agreement as it was impossible to pay the lease fee. The instant lease agreement stipulates that the instant lease agreement shall settle the accounts where the instant lease agreement is terminated at the time of the termination of the instant lease agreement, including the overdue lease fee, etc. from the contract deposit, and the Defendant only occupied the instant machinery until such settlement is made.

Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the Defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement or unlawful acquisition, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B) Of the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant had the ability and intent to repay KRW 15 million from the victim I at the time of borrowing KRW 15 million from the victim I, but the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by deeming that the Defendant had the criminal intent to acquire through deception, and thus,

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted that this part of the facts charged in the lower judgment is identical to the Defendant’s assertion, and as to this, the lower court: (a) as long as the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated due to the delayed payment of rent by the Defendant, the Defendant did not pay rent to the victim pursuant to the instant lease contract.