The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) The Defendant’s act of being entrusted with sale by the victim E was one year after the victim purchased a tramway type transport vehicle, and the victim was in the state of having no major parts by selling it in another place. Since the victim paid 7.5 million won to the victim and paid 7.5 million won, the crime of embezzlement is not established.

2) There was no injury to the victim G.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 3.7 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant made the instant tramway type transport vehicle from the victim E upon receiving an order from the victim E, and the Defendant was demanded to return the instant tramway type transport vehicle on November 30, 2014 after mutual consultation with the victim at a different place until November 30, 2014, prepared “the consignment sale contract for the tramway type transport vehicle,” and returned the said transport vehicle. The victim demanded the return of the vehicle on several occasions on May 2015, but refused the request, even if the victim rejected the request, it was sold high pressure and hydrotension during the tramway type transport vehicle.

Even if the victim demanded the return of the tramway type transport vehicle of this case, which was delivered as it was, the judgment of the court below is just in light of the following facts: even if the defendant paid a considerable amount of money, it does not affect the sex of the crime of embezzlement already established, and there is no error of law due to mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2) In full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court as to the determination of injury, and the protocol of examination of witness to G, the lower court’s determination is recognized as having inflicted injury on the victim G.