The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, it is true that the defendant of mistake of facts, as the head of C Village 2 Ban, received money from the victims as a leader of C Village 2 Ban without delivering it to the head of the village, and deposited in the account of a periodical gold opened in his name without delivering it to the head of the village. However, the head of the village at the time requested investigation agency to commit unlawful acts, such as embezzlement of village funds, etc., and requested investigation. If the above operation fund is delivered to the head of the village, it is deemed that the money would also be embezzled, and the defendant did not use it at his own discretion, and the defendant did not use it at his own discretion, and thus, the defendant did not have the intent of illegal acquisition in the crime of embezzlement, the court below found the defendant guilty

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to the intent to dispose of another person's property in his/her own possession for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party's interest, and even if there is an intention to return, compensate, or preserve it later, it does not interfere with the recognition of the intention of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3431, Jun. 2, 2006). Based on the above legal principles, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is comprehensively taken into account the following circumstances, namely, ① the victims believe that the defendant, the head of the C Village 2 team, who is his/her resident, believed to deliver the Operation Fund to the village head, and visited the defendant's house to make a payment from the victims at the time of paying the above money.