The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal principles, although the Defendant did not establish a consignment relationship with the Defendant, even though the Defendant did not have the status as a custodian, did not specify the purpose of use at the expense of director, but merely borrowed part of the expenses incurred in the construction of the building in this case from the injured party.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the punishment amounting to 6 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he embezzled cash of KRW 30 million owned by the victim as stated in the instant facts charged, by taking full account of the evidence and circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below's conviction, the above judgment of the court below seems to be justifiable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1) The Defendant alleged to the effect that the Defendant was not in a consignment relationship with the Defendant regarding the said money merely borrowed part of the expenses incurred in the construction of the instant building from the injured party. However, the instant construction could not be carried out unless the Defendant and the injured party were to pay the director’s expenses at the time of the contract, and there seems to have been no discussion on other expenses than the director’s expenses, and it appears that there was no discussion on D’s examination of the witness.