The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the fact, did not steals KRW 45 million in cash, and the Defendant did not commit a theft since E delegated the Defendant to dispose of shares 110,000,000, and issued the share certificates directly.

U not only allowed the defendant to use his credit card, but also U should limit the amount obtained by deceit to half of the settlement amount so that U can drink together with the defendant.

B. Undue sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court: (a) examined the victim E’s cash and sovereignty as a witness to directly report and observe the form and attitude at the time of the statement, consistency in statements, clarity, and accuracy of the statement; and (b) made the above witness’s statement as to this part of the facts charged, there is credibility.

The decision was determined.

In light of the spirit of substantial direct trial system adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court should respect the first deliberation decision on the credibility of the statement, except in extenuating circumstances, and there is no circumstance to deem that the judgment of the court below that recognized the credibility of the above statement is considerably unfair.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, including the above E, R’s statement in the court below and in the investigative agency, the defendant was on the victim E’s Nos. 44 as stated in the facts charged.

50,00 per centio 900, 110,00 per centios of non-listed shares

In addition, this part of the facts charged that a theft was committed can be fully recognized.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as the police statement of the victim U.S.’s U. credit card theft and fraud, and the Defendant’s statement in the lower court’s court, the evidence duly adopted and examined by U.S. reveals that U is responsible for the key of the wall A and the next key at the Defendant’s request.