The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant placed the instant wall that B lost, and then came to return it to the owner; and (b) the Defendant’s act does not constitute the crime of embezzlement as well as the intent to commit the said crime, since the evidence obtained on the wall other than the wall wall and cash was put in the wall box and the cash was returned to the police officer in charge of the instant case.

2. The judgment of the court below and the court below revealed the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, i.e., 160,00 won in cash (50,000 won KRW 3,10,00 won KRW 1,00 won and KRW 1,00 won in part) and personal card, body card, etc. at the time when the victim B lost the wall of this case, and the owner's identity had property value other than the wall, and the owner's identity can be accurately identified through identification card. ② After the wall of this case, the defendant got off the subway platform while he possessed the wall of this case and went back to the subway platform without notifying the service personnel of the acquisition and delivery of the water to the worker, or without going to the oil gathering center in the subway or the neighboring police station. ③ At that time, the defendant returned to the owner of this case without deducting only the cash content of the wall of this case, and ③ The defendant returned it to the nearby police officer's identity.

However, according to the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant separately stored cash on the premise that the contact was returned “on the face of a report,” and the police officer’s investigation was conducted after the report was made, and the Defendant sent the amount of KRW 1.60,000,000,000,000 from one’s passbook to one’s place where the Defendant was walled, i.e., the Defendant informed the police officer of the place where the Defendant was in contact with the empty wall.