A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant, by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, obtained a repayment loan to the existing loans on the land D, E, F, G, H, and I (hereinafter “instant land”) acquired in the course of running a real estate development project (hereinafter “instant project”) by entering into an agreement with the victim with the victim, and received a loan of KRW 260 million exceeding the existing loan amounting to KRW 150 million (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant first raised the instant project funds with personal funds, etc., and then was in accordance with an agreement with the victim on the method of raising funds for the instant project with the amount of money that the Defendant received as a collateral, and all of the excess amount to KRW 110 million,00,000,000,000 for the instant project. Thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to obtain any unlawful acquisition of the instant land, but did not have any intention to obtain any unlawful acquisition.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the relevant legal principles on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, an illegally obtained intent means that a person who keeps another's property intends to dispose of the owner's property without authority contrary to the entrusted intent.

(2) The crime of embezzlement is established when the intent of unlawful acquisition was explicitly indicated on the outside. As such, even if the person who committed the embezzlement holds a separate monetary claim against the owner of the goods, barring special circumstances, such as the settlement of offset before the crime of embezzlement is committed, such circumstance alone does not affect the crime of embezzlement already established.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9871, Jun. 14, 2012). Since a partner’s business property belongs to a partner’s partnership, as long as a partner continues to engage in a partnership relationship, the partner’s share in the business property at will.