A. 1) As to occupational embezzlement, the Defendant, in collaboration with the victim E, shall establish a farmer company and settle subsequent profits and expenses, and the head of the Tong (Account Number F; hereinafter “instant passbook”) in the name of the victim’s name.

(2) The court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts. 2) Since the defendant with respect to larceny was delegated the right to manage and use each farming machine as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “each farming machine of this case”) and used it for the purpose of each farming machine, the defendant was not deprived of the victim’s possession, and the defendant did not have any intention to commit larceny.

B. Even if the Defendant’s conviction is acknowledged, the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant obtained the victim’s consent to use the amount of the passbook for any purpose other than farming expenses. Thus, the defendant’s act of using the victim’s money under custody for another purpose constitutes embezzlement as realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition contrary to the intent of custody.

(1) In light of the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the victim shall not obtain any benefit, but not only the cost of farming and fishing, but also the amount of money worth KRW 100,000.