The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, received KRW 24,573,440 from the injured party as investment advisory fees, or did not embezzled the above money.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (7 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court: (a) received a request from the victim through D to transfer the investment amount (the substance seems to be the purchase amount of an electronic currency called “F”) from the victim to the company “F” in French via D; (b) received a remittance of KRW 324,573,440 in total from the victim on May 27, 2015 to the national bank account in the name of the Gu bank in the name of the Defendant; (c) arbitrarily used the money transferred to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant; and (d) requested the Defendant to return the entire amount remitted to the Defendant; (d) the Defendant could not withdraw money from the corporate account by the end of May 2015; and (e) the Defendant agreed to refund the remaining money to the victim without returning the money to the victim; and (e) the Defendant did not refund the money to the victim.

(2) The crime of embezzlement is established when the custodian of another’s property embezzled or refuses to return the property.

Embezzlement refers to any act that realizes the intent of unlawful acquisition, and the crime of embezzlement is established when there is an objective act that is recognizable to the outside of the intent of unlawful acquisition (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904, Dec. 9, 2004). The crime of embezzlement is expressed when the intent of unlawful acquisition is expressed.