The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact that the defendant arbitrarily withdraws and uses the price for the goods received from the customer of E by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, but it is only appropriate for the defendant to pay the price for the goods because the defendant has a claim to be reimbursed from H, the unemployment of E

Therefore, even though the defendant cannot be recognized as a crime of occupational embezzlement premised on the defendant's intent to obtain unlawful acquisition, the judgment below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, etc.

A. In the crime of occupational embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition in relation to the crime of occupational embezzlement refers to the intent to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of promoting his/her own or a third party's interest, such as his/her own property, and the crime of occupational embezzlement is established when such intent of unlawful acquisition is finally expressed externally. As such, once the crime was established by embezzlement of another person's property in his/her occupational custody with the intent of unlawful acquisition, the person who committed the crime of embezzlement asserts that he/she has a separate monetary claim against the owner of the goods, and that the person who committed the crime of embezzlement has expressed his/her own pecuniary claim against the owner of the goods, and even if he/she expressed his

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do59 delivered on March 14, 1995, etc.). B.

Judgment

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (i.e., the defendant was commissioned to represent E (H) upon the H’s request while in office as H’s operator D, and (ii) the defendant is a representative in the name of E and is a representative in the name of E.