The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misunderstanding of the legal doctrine did not have an intention to acquire illegal profits if the defendant did not pay the price for the goods to the victimized company.

However, the lower court found Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of four million won) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court erred in embezzlement.

The crime of embezzlement refers to the intent to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest as his/her own property. Since embezzlement is established when the intent of unlawful acquisition was finally expressed externally. Thus, even if a person who committed the crime of embezzlement has a separate monetary claim against the owner of an object, such circumstance alone cannot affect the crime of embezzlement unless there are special circumstances, such as the set-off before the crime of embezzlement was committed, and it is not clear whether the victimized company bears any obligation against the defendant, and there is no agreement between the defendant and the victimized company to set-off his/her obligation against the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant was found guilty as to the facts charged in this case.

In light of the records, the following facts are acknowledged.

When the injured company receives goods from the injured company on a regular basis and sells them to the device provided by the home Plus by the injured company, in terms of the Home Plus Daejeon, the injured company received the remainder excluding 24% of the commission for store use from the home Plus, and then pays 15% of the sales from the money to the Defendant.