Since the defendant did not specify and separately manage the proceeds from the disposal of the victim's property, and used them to the extent that does not go against the purpose of the entrustment, there is no intention to obtain unlawful profits from the defendant.

I would like to say.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

The part of the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts that the defendant cannot be the subject of embezzlement can be the subject of the rights and obligations under the private law, and there is no criminal capacity unless there is any express provision in the law, and the affairs of the legal person shall be realized by the representative act according to the decision-making by the representative agency which is the natural person representing

Therefore, even if a person is the principal agent of the custody of property in the crime of embezzlement under Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, a juristic person without criminal capacity cannot be the principal agent of the crime of embezzlement, and a representative agency dealing with affairs on behalf of the juristic person shall be the principal agent of the crime of embezzlement.

(1) The Defendant entered into an consignment contract with the victim on April 5, 2016, with the content that “E” means “E,” and the content that “A fee is limited (total of KRW 34,732,00,00) shall be paid to C, a seller,” and the content that “A fee is limited (total of KRW 34,732,00) shall be paid from March 30, 2016 to May 17, 2016.” Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant received from the victim the Plaintiff a book of KRW 80,524 from March 30, 2016 to the representative director from May 17, 2016: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27206, Apr. 5, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 27060, Feb. 6, 2015>