The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is not the victim's ownership, but the right to return is known to the company as it is owned by the company.

2. The judgment of the court below and the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the defendant and D, etc. have several goods, such as the company's documents, collection period, office supplies, computer, printer, corporate passbook, etc., from the company office, and the victim did not return all the goods, but requested the return of the Nowon-gu, the outer west, and the documents. ② The victim stated at the police around 2008 that the defendant purchased the Nowon-west and the outer west at around 2008 (if the defendant started to work in the company as the shareholder, around April 201), the defendant purchased the Nowon-west and the outer west (if the defendant purchased the company as the shareholder, around April 201). Such statements were reliable in the above statement because it was supported by the sales contract sent by the victim at the purchasing office, ③ the defendant's business suspension, and the amount invested in the company, and it was recognized that the defendant and the defendant were not aware that the defendant were the victim and the goods of this case.

Therefore, the above defendant's assertion that denies the criminal intent of embezzlement is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.