A. The court below rendered a judgment of not guilty of the part of the judgment below, despite the misapprehension of legal principles and misapprehension of legal principles, that the Defendant purchased sanitary equipment (a shower 1 set, handy 1 set, handy 1 set, handy 2 set, handy 2 set, handy 2 set, handy disinfection machine 2 set, smoking-free 2 set, smoking-free 2 set, smoking-stoves, 2 set 1 set, etc.), and paid the proceeds of embezzlement of June 29, 2012. However, insofar as it is not delivered in reality, the above sanitary equipment cannot be deemed as the Defendant’s possession, and even if the Defendant had the right to claim delivery of the above sanitary equipment, it cannot be executed against the victim’s will without going through lawful procedures, even if the Defendant had the right to claim delivery of the above sanitary equipment, and embezzled it by voluntarily disposing of the aforementioned sanitary equipment owned by the victim.

B. The embezzlement of October 14, 2012 is deemed to have been embezzled by the Defendant by arbitrarily removing and disposing of the storage facilities of the freezing temperature in the instant case on October 14, 2012, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have included in the scope of a contract for transfer of corporeal movables concluded between the Defendant and the FF farming association operated by the Defendant on January 17, 2012. The Defendant did not consent thereto at the time of disposing of the storage facilities of the instant case. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part, in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who was an employee of C Co., Ltd., and the victim D is a person operating a F Co., Ltd. in Chungcheong City E.

C Around May 201, the victim was equipped with a freezing storage facility of FF farming association around May 201, while the victim was holding a claim equivalent to 60 million won against the victim.