The crime of embezzlement is established when one member expresses his/her intention to withdraw in the partnership relationship with another person's property held in violation of his/her duties based on the entrustment of another person, and where one member expresses his/her intention to withdraw, the partnership relationship is terminated in its nature, but it is not dissolved, barring any special circumstance, and the partnership property which belongs to the partnership's joint ownership without liquidation does not belong to the partnership's sole ownership of the remaining union member, and only the refund of investment amount due to withdrawal between the withdrawing person and the remaining person. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court of first instance without the agreement that the defendant and the largest rule of first instance operated by the defendant and the non-indicted in the partnership with the defendant agreed to operate the party's joint business based on evidence, etc., but the above highest rule is terminated after paying only part of the agreed investment amount, and in this case, the facts charged on the premise that the defendant and the above highest rule of trust are co-ownership cannot constitute the crime of embezzlement, and there is no reasonable ground for appeal to this case.

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)