The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts (Embezzlement part) The Defendant merely acted as a broker for loan transactions between E and the victim, and the victim’s car directly brings about as security for his/her own claim. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the court below found guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter referred to as a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) E stated that “A Defendant provided that “I would have paid a large amount of interest. I would have given a part of interest” and lent KRW 900,000 to the Defendant. On August 26, 2013, the Defendant borrowed the said money to the Defendant as a security for the victim’s Ecuas car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) from the Defendant; (ii) on October 15, 2013, the Defendant received the money from the Defendant and transferred the said vehicle and its claim to L on KRW 16 million; and (iii) the Defendant provided the said vehicle and its claim to the Defendant again to the Defendant at the time of making a statement at the investigative agency that “I would have provided the Defendant with KRW 16,500,000,000,000 among the above KRW 16,500,000,0000,0000 to the Defendant’s previous vehicle and provided the remainder of the instant agreement.”