However, on June 19, 2012, the Defendant, upon renewal of the above lease agreement, entered into a lease agreement under the sole name of the victim without the consent of the victim. On February 28, 2013, the Defendant terminated the lease agreement with F, the owner of the building to close the restaurant business at the above place, and decided to sell the restaurant equipment, etc. to F, the above F, with the intention to sell the restaurant equipment, etc. at KRW 170 million. In addition, 140 million after deducting the public charges, etc., in the case of the Defendant’s sole business operation, received 65 million won as the refund of lease deposit and the sales price for the business facility, and kept the victim’s share

The Defendant voluntarily consumed 65 million won of the lease deposit owned by the victim at the time, and embezzled it in the repayment of the obligation of the Defendant.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted to the effect that “the Defendant and D agreed that D will withdraw from the partnership business around December 201, 201, and thus, the Defendant did not have the status to keep the money received from F, including 65 million won as stated in the facts charged, for D, and the Defendant did not have the intent to embezzlement the said money.”

B. According to the evidence, it seems clear that the Defendant and D discussed the “the case where D withdraws from the partnership business.”

The issue is whether there was an agreement between the defendant and D to the effect that D would withdraw from the partnership business, or whether the defendant was “a perception that there was such an agreement”.

C. The Defendant and D’s statement was made as evidence directly related to the above issues.