The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. For the following reasons, the conviction of the first instance court was based on mistake of facts and thus unfair.

1) The amount embezzled by the Defendant on or around May 2013 is KRW 20 million, and the amount embezzled on or around March 1, 2014 is KRW 42 million. It is unreasonable to find the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. 2) The Defendant did not receive money from the victim with the intent of defraudation.

B. The sentencing of the first instance court of unfair sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court of occupational embezzlement, in particular, examining the details of the use of funds, the photograph of the depository attached to the investigation report (on the spot and the statement of the victim), and the details of passbook transactions, etc., the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the entire amount of the facts charged was embezzled by the Defendant. Therefore, there is no illegality in misunderstanding of facts as to the crime of occupational embezzlement in the first instance court that made the above determination. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on such assertion is without merit. 2) The following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court of fraud, namely, ① the Defendant purchased U.S. airline tickets before receiving money from the victim, ② the Defendant immediately left the Republic of Korea with money from the victim, ③ the Defendant entered Korea on January

In light of the facts that the defendant was arrested, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that 10,000 Chinese money was received from the victim by deceiving the victim in spite of the defendant's intention or ability to exchange the victim's money.

Therefore, there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as to fraud in the first instance court which made the above judgment, and the defendant's assertion on this is without merit.

B. After committing the crime of this case, including the background of the crime of this case committed by the defendant and the fact that the defendant neglected the restoration of damage caused by occupational embezzlement.