The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have agreed to return KRW 130,400,000 that was paid in excess of the contract amount, and the Defendant refused to return the above amount with the intent to offset the increased cost due to the design change after the contract was entered into. As such, the Defendant’s act does not constitute embezzlement, and the Defendant did not have the intent

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. The money received from a third party on behalf of the mandator by a person delegated with administrative affairs that entails the receipt of a judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is the same as the money received by the delegating for the delegating person, and, barring any special circumstance, the money belongs to the delegating person’s possession at the same time as the money was received by the delegating person, and the delegating person is in a relationship that

It shall be viewed (Supreme Court Decision 96Do3155 delivered on March 28, 1997), and as in the case of money entrusted by a person entrusted with administrative affairs involving receipt and receipt of money for the purpose or use of the money received from a third party on behalf of the mandator, it shall not be used in accordance with the purpose of the delegation, and as in the case of money entrusted by the third party on behalf of the mandator, it shall be appropriated for offsetting the defendant's claims against the mandator in accordance with the intent of the delegation, unless there is any special agreement that the offset would be settled, and it shall constitute embezzlement as it goes against the original delegation intent (Supreme Court Decision 97Do1520 delivered on September 26, 1997). In full view of the following circumstances admitted and investigated by the court below based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant shall return the difference between the amount actually paid by the victim and the contract amount.