The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant, at the time of the victim and Jeju, performed the removal of the ground C-ground buildings and waste disposal work in the same business relationship.

The Defendant informed the victim of the fact that the beam beam was sold in advance, and the victim consented thereto.

The defendant is merely merely merely a failure to settle the sales price of the sn beam beam between the victim and the victim, but does not flee or stop contact for the purpose of not settling the accounts.

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

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the relevant legal doctrine is established when a person who keeps another’s property commits embezzlement. The embezzlement as a constituent element of the crime of embezzlement refers to any act that realizes the intent of unlawful acquisition, and the crime of embezzlement is established when there is an objective act that can be externally recognized by the intent of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904, Dec. 9, 2004). In addition, the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement refers to the intent of disposal of another’s property in violation of his/her duties as his/her own property for the purpose of achieving his/her own interest or a third party’s interest, and even if he/she wishes to return or reimburse it later, the intent of unlawful acquisition may be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1263, Dec. 24, 2014).

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., the victim’s “Defendant 3, Jun. 3, 2016” and “E”

6.6. The sn beamline was sold in 6.

The sn beam beamline was sent to the site.