The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding the Defendant recommended the victim to make an investment in a non-ferrous business operated by the Defendant, and the victim consented thereto and used the money as mineral import funds to remit money.

Since the defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement, there is an error of misconception of facts that the court below recognized the defendant's above act as embezzlement.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the following facts acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the part on the Chinese War 497,031 (hereinafter “China”) concerning the Defendant is omitted.

After being assigned, the Defendant appears to have recommended the victim to introduce the non-ferrous business operated by the Defendant, and to have been given consideration to investing funds in the business in China owned by the victim. The victim, at the close time, was in possession of the 4,59,070 bill, he was in possession of the 4,59,070 bill that he was in possession of his apartment house in China. On November 15, 201, the victim was in charge of the 497,031 bill for the Defendant who was in the non-ferrous business in China, and the remaining money was deposited in the G bank account and had the “H”, who was working in the bank, manage it.

B. After that, the Defendant: (a) on February 28, 2012, the victim: (b) “The victim’s funds in the G Bank are still available; and (c) the principal is suffering from losses. G Bank’s retirement was discontinued, and (d) he/she would not perform his/her duties, but there is an unstable part; (b) the Defendant’s purchase of the non-stock in the previous non-stock business is likely to be similar to the principal on a one-year basis; and (c) the same is applicable to the current situation.”