The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of embezzlement: “The Defendant embezzled the aforementioned mobile phone at his own discretion during the period when he scam together with the victim and scambling the victim’s scam in the kitchen, and kept it for the victim.” As to this, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that he cannot be deemed as having been in the status of a person who has the custody of another’s property, and that he cannot be deemed as having disposed of another’s property as his own ownership.

However, the subject of embezzlement is a person who keeps another's property according to the consignment relationship, and the consignment relationship does not necessarily need to be established according to a contract, such as lending for use, delegation, etc., and may be established according to the customary rules of office management, customs, cooking, etc., and the owner does not necessarily have to be entrusted

(See Supreme Court Decision 84Do2644 Decided September 10, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 87Do1778 Decided October 13, 1987, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17396 Decided March 24, 201, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, the Defendant and the victim become aware of the police officer in the middle of August 2010, and became aware of the fact that the Defendant and the victim became aware of the fact on August 27, 2010, while drinking alcohol together with the Defendant’s proposal, they went to the front line with each other while drinking alcohol at the front line. During that process, the victim went to the front line while leaving the cell phone, and the victim was found to have taken care of the Defendant, who was the owner of the said mobile phone, with the intention to transfer it to the owner, the Defendant should be deemed to have kept the victim’s cell phone.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant cannot be held as a custodian of another's property is the legal principle on the consignment relationship of embezzlement.