All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

If a transport company and its employees receive a certain amount of wages from a transport company and then pay the transport income on the same day to the transport company, but if the transport income exceeds the taxi commission, which is the standard amount of monthly transport income, the transport company shall settle the transport income paid by its employees on a monthly basis, and if an agreement was concluded between the transport company and its employees to adjust the excess amount by allocating it at a certain rate to the transport company and its employees, and if the agreement was concluded to deduct the difference from the worker’s pay for the shortage amount, it is reasonable to deem that the total amount of the transport income that the employee first left after the lapse of the taxi commission is under the management and control of the transport company, and thus, if the worker arbitrarily consumes the transport income, the crime of embezzlement is constituted.

This means that even if a worker has the right to partially distribute transportation earnings exceeding the taxi commission to the transportation company, there is no different special circumstances, barring any other special circumstances.

Examining the records in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is justifiable for the lower court to have found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles as to “depositor” in the crime of embezzlement.

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