The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the Defendant: (a) registered the business in the name of “E” in order to engage in new transactions with the existing business partners; and (b) did not receive and embezzled the price of the goods supplied at the time of the said business relationship with the victim.

In addition, the defendant received the price of the goods supplied in the past and stored them separately in the Daegu Bank account that had not been used in the past.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of embezzlement, even though the Defendant did not have any criminal intent or intent of unlawful acquisition, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, in light of the following circumstances in the part on the “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the said judgment, deemed that the Defendant had no intent to commit the crime of embezzlement and to obtain illegal acquisition.

The assertion was rejected on the ground that it could not be seen.

① On July 2, 2013, at the time of the termination of a partnership agreement with the victim, the Defendant registered the business with the same trade name as the trade name of the business place in which the victim was engaged on the same day. On the same day, the Defendant opened the Agricultural Cooperative Account and received money from the traders indicated in the facts charged to the said account for goods generated during the partnership with the victim.

② The above account is an account in which the revenue and expenditure amount generated by the Defendant’s personal business are frequently traded, and the Defendant did not keep and manage the amount of goods received from the business entity as stated in the facts charged for the settlement with the victim.

(3) The defendant shall be the victim from his/her trader.