A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Accordingly, as only the Defendant appealed, the part of the judgment of the court below, which was not guilty, was transferred to this court, but has been exceeded from the object of public defense among the parties, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is followed and it is not determined separately.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was not in the position of keeping another person’s property, and there was no intention of embezzlement or intent of unlawful acquisition. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. 1 Determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts

(i) the founder was in a partnership business relationship with D, the representative director in the name of the victim, and F Ecoos car under the name of the victim company (hereinafter referred to as “instant vehicle”).

() The Defendant mainly managed and used the same business property, and the Defendant does not constitute embezzlement. The Defendant asserts that the consignment relationship with respect to the custody of property in embezzlement is sufficient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9632, Jan. 31, 2008; 2007Do9632, Jan. 31, 2008). In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the instant vehicle in the name of the victim company cannot be deemed as the same business property of the Defendant and D, and it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was in the de facto custodian of the said vehicle while using the instant vehicle with D’s consent.

(1) D shall be February 2010.