The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Whether the J has entrusted the custody of the down payment received by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles to the defendant

D is not entrusted by D, and D is not a victim of embezzlement.

In addition, the defendant used the down payment as civil construction costs in order to prevent defects in the contract related to the land of this case, so there was no intention of illegal acquisition.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Ownership of the consigned goods on consignment sale is owned by the mandator, and the sales proceeds therefrom shall belong to the truster at the same time. Thus, barring any special circumstance, if a person to whom the sale was entrusted arbitrarily uses or consumes the consigned goods or the sales proceeds, the crime of embezzlement is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do813, Mar. 27, 1990). It is an intention to acquire unlawful acquisition in embezzlement.

The term "public interest" refers to an intention to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her duty for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest as his/her own property. Even if there is an intention to return, compensate, or preserve it later, it does not interfere with recognizing an intention to acquire unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7259, Mar. 14, 2013). (ii) In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to this case, the defendant entered into a sales contract with the J (N's main name) on behalf of the victim on or around July 29, 2015, the defendant completed registration of the transfer of ownership on the land of this case to the J side on or around the same month, and received KRW 20 million from J as a down payment on or around the same month.