The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds of larceny, which is the primary charge, among the facts charged, and found the Defendant guilty on the embezzlement, which is the ancillary charge.

In this case, only the Defendant appealed against this, and in accordance with the principle of no appeal, the part not guilty in the reasoning is also judged in the trial. However, this part already deviates from the object of the attack and defense between the parties and is de facto relieved from the object of the trial. Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment below is to be followed and the decision is not to be judged again.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the victim delivered the instant water to the defendant in lieu of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, it cannot be recognized that the other party of the property or the consignment relationship was not recognized, and there was no intention of embezzlement.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The court below also argued that the defendant is identical to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail by stating the judgment in detail. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of

B. No new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial of unfair sentencing, and even considering all of the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate to be exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.