In the consignment sale, the ownership of the consigned goods belongs to the mandator, and the sales proceeds shall belong to the truster, unless there are other special agreements or special agreements, and therefore, if they are consumed, the crime of embezzlement is constituted. In light of the detailed contents between the defendant and the complainant of this case, according to the records, it is recognized that the defendant would receive sales payment from the above Kim Jong-type and sold the goods in the judgment, unless there are special circumstances, the relationship between supply of goods between the two parties shall be viewed as the consignment, and the defendant's consumption of the proceeds shall constitute the crime of occupational embezzlement. Therefore, the court below's measures against the defendant for the crime of occupational embezzlement are just, and there are no errors of misconception of facts contrary to the rules of evidence, and therefore all the arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)