All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of all the sentencing conditions of the instant judgment of the first instance court, the lower court’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) Judgment of the second instance (1) 1-b of the judgment

In relation to the embezzlement, the amount of money embezzled by the defendant is only KRW 3,60,000.

(2) In relation to the fraud of paragraph (2) of the judgment, the defendant shall not be accused of money by deceiving the victim C.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the first, and second court rendered a judgment after having undergone a separate hearing against the Defendant. The Defendant filed an appeal against both the first and second judgment, and the court rendered a decision to jointly examine each of the above appeals cases.

However, since the crime of the first and second and the crime of the second and second and the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the first and second and the second and all of them cannot be maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio determination, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts about the second judgment is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. 1) Article 1-2(b)(i) of the judgment of the court of the second instance (i.e., embezzlement and refusal of return" under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act means an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right against the stored goods. Thus, in order for a person to constitute embezzlement, the fact that the custodian of another’s property simply refuses to return is insufficient, and the refusal of return should be deemed to be the same as the embezzlement, taking into account the subjective reasons for refusal of return, and the so-called illegal acquisition intent in embezzlement is that the so-called “the person who keeps another’s property.”