The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In concluding a delegation contract on the instant building with the victim, the Defendant agreed to receive KRW 3 million per month as commission or in salary, and accordingly deducted the above money from the money received from the purchaser and lessee of the building, and thus, even though there was no intention of embezzlement, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case.

Judgment

According to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the court below is justified in its judgment of conviction as to this part of the facts charged, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as pointed out by the defendant. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The victim stated in the court below that “the Defendant did not allow the buyer to use the down payment of KRW 50 million received from the buyer for his personal purpose” (the trial record 90 pages), and that “the Defendant did not allow the lessee to use the rent, rent, etc. received from the lessee for his personal purpose” (the trial record 92-93 pages).

Defendant

Also, it seems that there was no explicit consent from the victim (Evidence Nos. 113-114). It appears that there was an ex post consent of the victim to the effect that the victim requested to pay the money held in custody of the victim, “I will pay the money later,” and that there was no special agreement to receive the monthly salary of three million won as alleged by the defendant in the contract of a building sales and purchase of the building, and it is difficult to view that there was a verbal agreement with the victim on the payment of fees or pay for the above contents (the trial record No. 94-96, the evidence record No. 100), even if the defendant is alleged by the defendant.