The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal [2014 senior 146 case] is the fact that the defendant borrowed 30 million won from the victim G from the victim, but there is no fact of deceiving the victim for the purpose of deceiving the above borrowed money.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found guilty of fraud is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

[2014 High Order 486]

A. Legal doctrine 1) Since an agency contract entered into between the Defendant and the victim was not lawfully terminated, the Defendant did not have the obligation to return the goods in stock to the victim.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of embezzlement on the ground that the defendant refused to return inventory goods is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) Even if the instant agency contract was terminated,

Even if the contract is terminated under the agency contract between the defendant and the victim, it is stipulated that both parties should settle the contract under mutual consultation and confirmation, so it was impossible for the defendant to check the current status of inventory, the current status of outstanding amount, etc. by unilaterally blocking the computer system.

For the above reasons, since the defendant could not respond to the victim's request for return, there was a justifiable reason to refuse the return of inventory goods, and there was no intention to obtain illegal acquisition.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the defendant guilty of embezzlement.

B. The number of clothes that the Defendant embezzled by mistake of fact is calculated by the victim’s computer system, and there is room for the victim to operate the said computer system, so the number of clothes that the Defendant embezzled cannot be viewed as 5,469 points as the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found guilty of embezzlement on the basis of the records of the computer system without credibility is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the defendant's side also contests the admissibility of evidence.