All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 used the instant money with the explicit or implied consent from the victim D with respect to the use thereof.

② Since the Defendant used the instant money for the benefit of the victim, who is the owner of the instant money, the Defendant cannot be recognized as an unlawful acquisition intent in the crime of embezzlement.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: (a) Money received from a third party on behalf of the delegating person based on the act is similar to the money that was received by the delegating person for the purpose or purpose; and (b) the delegated person, barring any special circumstance, shall be deemed to belong to the delegating person’s possession at the same time; and (c) the delegated person shall be deemed to have the relation to the custody of the delegating person; and (d) the money received from a third party on behalf of the delegating person based on the act is not used in accordance with the purpose or purpose of the delegation, and the offset appropriation of the defendant’s claim against the delegating person is contrary to the original delegation purpose, unless there is an agreement that the delegated person would settle the offset, and thus, constitutes embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3681, Aug. 19, 2005; and (b) the court below and the court below consistently accepted and investigated evidence duly; and (c) the victim shall have consistently asserted the above facts from the prosecution from 900 million to the Defendant.