The defendant and prosecutor's appeal are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles determined that the Defendant could confiscate the victims’ share of compensation and distribute it to the remaining members at the time of distributing the compensation on January 11, 2010. Thus, there was no intention of embezzlement or unlawful acquisition, and there was no intention of embezzlement and no intention of unlawful acquisition, the remaining eight members except the victims and some of the compensation they received, and the remainder was distributed for subsequent settlement and did not embezzled the victims’ share of compensation. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of embezzlement or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too heavy.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination

A. “Refusal of return” under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles refers to an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right against the stored goods. As such, in order for a person to constitute embezzlement, the “Refusal of return” is insufficient merely by the fact that the custodian of another person’s property refuses to return, and the act of refusal of return should be deemed to be the same as the act of embezzlement by taking account of the reasons for refusal of return and the subjective intent, and the so-called intention of unlawful acquisition in embezzlement refers to the intent to dispose of the property of another person as the owner without a legitimate title contrary to the purport of embezzlement. Thus, even if the return refusal was refused, if the return was not returned due to a justifiable reason, the intention of

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do126 delivered on July 10, 1998, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant, five victims, P, I, J, Q, Q, R and K are Seoul Central District.