The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts and legal principles 1) The Defendant did not receive wages from the victim company from November 201 to April 201, 201. Since the business partnership relationship with C was terminated in fact and there was a claim for the settlement of accounts, and it was intended to add business reserve such as office rent in the form of a deposit in the process of the establishment of the victim company, the Defendant’s KRW 1 (hereinafter “the instant cleaning service deposit”) under the facts charged of this case should be appropriated for the benefits that the Defendant is to receive from the victim company and the settlement of the same business or the claim for the provisional payment. 2) The Defendant’s regular employees of the victim company paid the amount of money under paragraph 2 (2) of the instant facts charged of this case (hereinafter “the instant personnel expenses”) to the employee of the victim company, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention or intention to acquire unlawful profits in the course of the victim company, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. The defendant guilty for an unfair sentencing

Even if the court below's sentence (7 million won) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant used the money in the Defendant’s assertion by withdrawing and using the company’s money, or showing that the funds used in the Defendant’s assertion were appropriated in a way different from the money. Rather, in a case where there are many reliable materials to prove that the Defendant used the money for personal purposes, the Defendant embezzled the money with the intent of unlawful acquisition (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6553, Apr. 29, 2010, etc.).