B. The meaning of a special agreement that can resolve the contract by returning the principal and interest of the investment in the company

(c) The diversion of the partner’s money before exercising the right to terminate the contract for the same business and the nature of embezzlement;

B. If there is a special agreement that the contract may be settled by half of the principal and interest of investment within the period of the contract under the same business agreement, it cannot be interpreted as an agreement on actual claim security to secure the loan equivalent to the amount of investment, and the special agreement should be interpreted as a special agreement on the right to terminate the contract under the same business agreement.

C. If a partner deposits the principal and interest of the investment in accordance with a special contract for the reservation of the right to terminate the contract and then appropriates the partner’s money to pay the individual debt before exercising the right to terminate the contract, the existence of the special contract does not affect the establishment of embezzlement.

1. As to the crime of injury by assault:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the victim accused the victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's face twice through 5 days to 8 days' face. Among the evidences of the court below, evidence of violence victim's victim's injury is only the defendant's prosecutor's office and the court of first instance and the court of first instance, and the victim's witness's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's witness.

2. As to embezzlement

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant entered into a partnership contract with the non-indicted 1 as of April 28, 1978 with the purpose of distributing profits through the construction, lease, etc. of the building of this case and found the defendant guilty as to the charges of embezzlement of this case against each of the defendant, by violating the contract deposit for the lease of this case as of the non-indicted 2,000,000 won received from the non-indicted 2 as the contract deposit for the lease of the building of this case, which is the object of the same business as of April 11, 1979.

In light of the records, the court below is just in reviewing the process of the above fact-finding in light of the records, and there is no error of misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, and even if the defendant appropriated the above money for the repayment of deposit due to the cancellation of the lease contract with the existing lessee of the building, such as the head of the family theory, as long as the above tenant's lease contract with the existing lessee was acknowledged by the defendant himself prior to the conclusion of the contract of this case between the above interests-based parties, the obligation to return deposit due to the cancellation of the existing lease contract shall be deemed as the obligation of an individual who is unrelated to the above rules of understanding of the non-indicted as a partner, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as an expenditure for the company on the ground of the above appropriation because it is not reasonable to understand the legal principles of the above special agreement of the defendant's establishment of the contract of this case to secure the convenience of the above special agreement within 4 months prior to the conclusion of the contract of this case, and therefore, it cannot be understood that the above special agreement of this case cannot be interpreted as the above agreement of embezzlement.

3. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is. Since this part of the judgment below is imposed as concurrent crimes with embezzlement, the court below reversed the entire judgment below against the defendant and remanded the case to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)