The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the misunderstanding of facts, only entered into a lease agreement on the instant machine under the name of the victim F, and the actual owner of the instant machine was the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the intention of unlawful acquisition in embezzlement refers to the intention of disposing of another person's property in breach of his/her duty for the purpose of pursuing the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, such as his/her own property.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do7259 Decided March 14, 2013, etc.). The Defendant and the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that the crime of embezzlement is not established on the grounds that the actual owner of the instant machine was the Defendant and the Defendant’s defense counsel in the lower court identical to the grounds for appeal of this case. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”. In comparison with the records, the lower court’s judgment is just and acceptable, and therefore, the lower court’s judgment cannot be deemed to have been deemed to have held that the Defendant used and stored the instant machine corresponding to another’s property and disposed of it to a third party without the victim’s permission. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the instant machinery, which was leased and used, was disposed of at will without the victim’s permission, and the nature of the crime is weak.