The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 사실 오인 및 법리 오해 피고인은 이 사건 물건을 주차 안내요원에게 돌려 주려고 하였다가 깜빡 잊고 가져가게 된 것으로 불법 영득의사가 없었다.

The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding the facts and legal principles of the defendant (1) The crime of embezzlement is completed by the act of acquiring possession, such as lost property, with the intention of acquiring it, and the prosecutor must prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing an intent to acquire it. The evidence must be based on strict evidence with probative value that makes a judge not more reasonable doubt. However, the term "reasonable doubt" refers to a reasonable question that can be supported by logical and empirical rules, not including any doubt and correspondence (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8154, Jan. 27, 2005, etc.). (2) The defendant's judgment in this case refers to the place where the public register of this case was discovered, the situation at the time of discovery and bringing about it, and the defendant's attempt to return the goods to the victim without sufficiently trying to find the owner or staff of the lost goods or staff of the victim, and the defendant's intent to return them to the victim's house without taking account of the fact that the defendant did not bring them back to the victim's house.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant's argument of sentencing is unfair.