All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) When the Defendant was unable to pay cash to the office, the Defendant paid the money to the Defendant and received the money from the Defendant’s account to the Defendant’s account, etc., but did not embezzled the money of the victim.

2) According to the facts that the prosecutor (1) submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the charge even though the Defendant received money as stated in the facts charged, and did not deposit the money to the victim and embezzled the money by arbitrarily consuming it.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination 1) The Defendant has the same assertion as the Defendant alleged in the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

The court below rejected its decision as to the argument below in the summary of evidence.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and, in particular, according to the statements between the victim and Q, the victim appears to have not consented to the transfer of the account as stated in the court below's holding, the judgment of the court below that the defendant embezzled the victim's money as stated in the court below's holding

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

2) The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, and in particular, the facts charged in this part only specified the date and amount of the automobile transaction, which is the cause of the deposit, and did not specify the date and time of embezzlement by using the money received by the Defendant at will. ② This part of the facts charged is that the Defendant embezzled the money omitted or reduced in the daily account book relating to a specific sale as stated in the No. 1-277 table of the crime committed in the lower judgment, and that the account used by the victim was traded.