The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, has withdrawn funds from the victim J Co., Ltd. and used them individually, the Defendant not only obtained the consent of investors, but also did not have the intent of embezzlement as much as having immediately returned.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) the Defendant did not obtain D’s consent; (ii) the Defendant embezzled not only the Defendant but also the amount borrowed D for the construction contract, not its capital; (iii) the Defendant used the money illegally withdrawn for the company’s operating fund; and (iv) the Defendant obtained the consent of the investor.

(2) The corporation may not withdraw the corporation's funds without permission, and the corporation returned the funds later.

In light of the fact that it is not different, the defendant may recognize the fact that he embezzled the funds of the victim company.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendant’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The Defendant seems to have returned most of the embezzled amount to recover the damage.

However, the defendant has used the funds of the victim company as funds for its operation against the intent of the investor's entrustment, and not only has used the funds of the victim company as funds for its operation but also has reached 200 million won.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and consequences as shown in the records and pleadings, all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the commission of crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is difficult to view it as unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.