The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the non-guilty portion of the lower judgment’s reasoning, the Defendant’s account transaction details in the Defendant’s account transaction details with a high value of evidence, and each evidence reveals that the Defendant embezzled 196,904 won, but the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, by investing funds in cooperation with the victim C, opened a restaurant in the name of “E” in Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, and divided profits in the form of shares in the event that profits accrue, and received KRW 10 million from the injured party for the purpose of operating the business.

While the Defendant kept a restaurant opening business fund for the victim, the Defendant arbitrarily used KRW 196,904 of the water purifier unpaid rental fee, such as the watermark 12 in the attached Table 12.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) based on the evidence record (7 pages), that the cost was disbursed from the Defendant’s account as “unpaid rental fee.”

The facts stated are acknowledged, but the defendant claims that the water purifiers actually used at the money log house, which is the business place of the existing defendant, is the expenses incurred in moving the water purifiers to the business place where the defendant and the victim would work together. The testimony of the witness F of the court below, which is the husband of the defendant, is supported by this, and it seems clear that the defendant and the victim moved their water purifiers to work for a partnership around November 2016, there is no evidence to confirm how the expenditure for the actual expenses was used only by the bank transaction details.