The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles was delegated by the victim with the authority to conclude a comprehensive lease agreement, including monthly rent and rent, and the Defendant does not have any fact that the victim suffered damage by remitting money to the victim more than the lease deposit and monthly rent received from the lender while managing the instant loan.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on February 6, 2010, the Defendant agreed to manage the Defendant’s Jeoncheon-gu Down-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant loan”) for the victim C on or around February 6, 2010. The victim was in charge of the Defendant’s management of the instant loan, stating the monthly expected rent amount of KRW 3,300,000,000 to the Defendant (Evidence 248 pages), and the Defendant transferred each of KRW 10,000 to the victim on February 17, 2010 and then transferred each of KRW 2,00,000 to the Defendant from June 17, 2013, and the Defendant transferred each of KRW 30,000 to KRW 4,000,000 to KRW 301,000 on July 14, 2012 and KRW 201,301,201,21,201,201.

In relation to the loan 302 of this case, the lease deposit is KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 130,000,000, and the lease contract with G and the loan 303 of this case was concluded on February 19, 2013 and did not notify the victim of this fact without monthly rent, and it can be acknowledged that the defendant used the loan at his own discretion without remitting the deposit received from the above lessee to the victim.

The above facts of recognition.