The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the instant case, the Defendant did not assault the victim in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) [2017 order 1176] case.

2) [2017 senior order 1177] With respect to the case, the complainant of this case, who is the bankruptcy administrator of the victim company, is not a third party, and the indictment of this case is unlawful, and the defendant has monetary claims against F, the representative of the victim company, and the defendant only stored the vehicle as stated in the judgment of the court below, and thus, the defendant does not constitute embezzlement.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 1,200,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the victim and witness of the instant case related to the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed assault against the victim's clothes at the bus stops at the time of the instant case on one occasion. Thus, there is no error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below, and there is no allegation by the defendant that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court related to the instant case, the fact that the Defendant refused to return the vehicle without legitimate authority while keeping the vehicle in custody under the name of the victim company can be sufficiently recognized. Furthermore, embezzlement is not subject to a crime subject to a crime subject to a crime subject to a crime subject to a crime subject to a crime subject to a crime subject to a crime subject to a crime subject to a crime pursuant to Article 87Do2020 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do2020, Nov. 10, 1987). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that there was an error of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in

B. The extent of the assault in this case, which judged the illegality of sentencing, is relatively minor, and the vehicle in the judgment of the court below is eventually returned, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

However, on the other hand, this case.