The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant was paid 2.5 million won out of the dividend of this case as a honorarium for the Defendant’s aiding and abetting the victim’s litigation and construction; and (b) borrowed and used the remainder of 2.5 million won; and (c) the victim also accepted the Defendant’s use of the dividend of this case as soon as the payment was made at the court below’s discretion.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. A. Around December 2012, the Defendant received a decision of provisional seizure from the victim C to obtain a decision of provisional seizure against D, and was delegated to recover the amount deposited with dividends in the auction procedure. On December 26, 2012, the Defendant received the dividend amount of KRW 4,992,596 deposited in the Suwon Friwon, but arbitrarily consumed the said dividends around that time.

In light of the records of this case, there is no obstacle to the defendant's exercise of his right to defense, and basic facts were appropriately revised and recognized within the same scope.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the Defendant could have arbitrarily consumed the instant dividends against the victim’s will without obtaining the victim’s consent, by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed through the evidence at the time.

1) In light of the fact that the victim’s statement on the delegation of the authority to receive the instant dividends and the developments leading up to the occurrence of disputes after the delegation of the authority to receive the instant dividends is generally consistent and specific, and that the victim’s statement on matters that may be unfavorable to the principal (the fact that the use of the dividends was permitted on August 2013) is credibility in light

The decision is judged.

2) On the other hand, the Defendant was entitled to use dividends, and some dividends were settled in connection with E-construction.