The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The use of 1,416,00 won is being remitted from the victim of mistake of facts, but the victim's relationship with the victim has deteriorated and did not return the money. Therefore, there is a justifiable reason to refuse the return, and there was no intention of embezzlement.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts 1) The Defendant recognized that the Defendant used the money as office operating expenses while receiving KRW 1,416,00 from the victim as the purchase price for airline tickets. The money entrusted with the purpose and purpose of use was reserved to the truster until the money is used for the prescribed purpose and purpose, and thus, if the trustee arbitrarily consumes the money (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6733, Mar. 9, 2006). As long as the Defendant used the money deposited as the purchase price for airline tickets as office operating expenses, the crime of embezzlement is established since the intention of unlawful acquisition is clearly expressed externally, and the intent of embezzlement is also recognized. 2) The Defendant received the attorney-at-law in charge of divorce litigation from the victim, and received approximately KRW 2 million in return for the said money, but did not claim for the purport that the money should not be recovered due to the aggravation of the relationship with the victim.

However, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as having the right to refuse to return to the defendant.

Even if the Defendant had a monetary claim equivalent to the above amount against the victim, the establishment of the crime of embezzlement is not affected unless there are special circumstances, such as the settlement of offset before using it as office operating expenses.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do59, Mar. 14, 1995). The fact-finding and decision of the court below to the same purport are justified, and they are argued by the defendant.