The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of the Reasons for Appeal: In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the Defendant’s intent of embezzlement or illegal acquisition is not recognized, although it could sufficiently be recognized as the Defendant’s intent of embezzlement or illegal acquisition.

2. For consignment sales and purchases, the ownership of the consigned goods shall belong to the mandator, and the sales proceeds shall belong to the consignor, except under any other special agreement or special agreement, as well as to the truster;

As such, the crime of embezzlement is established when the person consumes the property of another person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do1000, Jun. 24, 1986). Meanwhile, in the crime of embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition refers to the intent of a person who keeps another’s property to dispose of the property as his own property without authority contrary to the intent of the entrustment for his own or a third party’s interest,

(2) Article 6(1) and (2) of the Act on the Entrustment of Sale of mobile phones between the Defendant and the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “B”) on February 12, 2016 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do134, Mar. 12, 2004). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant entered into an entrustment contract between the Defendant and the Victim B (hereinafter “B”) on the entrustment of sale of mobile phones, etc.