The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant used approximately KRW 20 million for the purpose of paying the subcontract price for the victim of the money stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, the above money is not charged with embezzlement.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as indicated in the judgment of the lower court. 2) The lower court’s judgment on the crime of embezzlement is established when the person who keeps another’s property embezzleds the said property; and the crime of embezzlement as a constituent element of the crime of embezzlement refers to all the acts realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition, and the crime of embezzlement is established when there is an objective act that can be perceived from the outside of the intent of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do3677, May 12, 2016). The intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement refers to an intention to dispose of another’s property in fact or in law, as he/she owns his/her own property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party’s interest, and even if he/she has an intention to return,

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged by the Defendant, in so doing, by comparing the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the facts alleged by the Defendant.

If the defendant received from the customers each remittance and delivery of the construction price and then remitted the less amount to the account in the name of the victim, the defendant's unlawful acquisition intent of the difference in the relevant construction price is objectively indicated as an act of remitting it to the account in the victim's name.