The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, (1) occupational embezzlement (2014 senior 2118 criminal facts No. 1) Defendant was the actual owner of the building located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, the interest of the actual owner of the building located in Sungnam-si, and the actual operator of the “F studio” on the second floor of the building in question.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the Defendant was in the status of business keeping the monthly income by being entrusted with the management of the above studio teleel with the victim C.

(2) Each property damage (2014 high 2118 criminal facts 2) ① The real owner of the building located in Ma-gu I and G located in Sung-nam City is the defendant, and thus, the articles attached to each of the above buildings are owned by the defendant.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the entrance, exhausters, and CCTV attached to the above building were not owned by the Defendant.

② The act indicated in this part of the facts charged constitutes a legitimate act under the Criminal Act, which is a defensive act to protect a criminal defendant from having his/her property deducted from the criminal defendant C or D.

(3) The intrusion of a structure (2014 high 2119 criminal facts) ① The Defendant is the owner with respect to one half of a building located in Sungnam-gu Lone, Sungnam-si.

However, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the above building was not owned by the Defendant.

(2) The acts written in this part of the facts charged constitute legitimate acts under the Criminal Act because they inevitably enter a warehouse to cause any clerical error in the extension of the defendant's ownership.

(4) The Defendant did not assault the Victim E or D (2014, 2118, 2014, 2114, 2119, 2).

2. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in determining the crime of occupational embezzlement, i.e., the Defendant’s building located in Sungnam-gu G in an investigative agency.