The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal - Fact misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles – Defendant is possible to convert because he/she obtained approval from a social welfare joint fund-raising association at the time.

In order to receive a refund of 7 million won paid by him on behalf of the above social welfare foundation, the documents evidencing the disbursement of subsidies are only received upon request from G operating H, which is a machine purchased by N in the past and does not constitute occupational embezzlement by arbitrarily dedicated the designated deposit money.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a guilty verdict against the defendant, which erred by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendant alleged to the effect that the lower court alleged the above facts as alleged in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, but the lower court knew that, in light of the application for the instant deposit and the situation at the time of its use, etc., the Defendant was aware that the purpose of the instant deposit was strictly limited to what was stated in the application form for distribution of the designated deposit business, and that it was used for purposes other

Recognized.

Therefore, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had the intent of embezzlement or unlawful acquisition.

It is reasonable to regard (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do2238, Feb. 22, 2007; 96Do8, Apr. 22, 1997). As alleged by the Defendant, the circumstance that N repaid the victim's loan on behalf of the victim and received the refund, as argued by the Defendant, shall be no longer considered in sentencing, and it shall not interfere with the establishment of a crime. The above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the defendant's mistake and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.