The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) The Defendant intended to acquire and dispose of four parcels of land (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) such as the victims and Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, and distribute profits therefrom. However, the Defendant and the victims are not engaged in a club business, but the victims are merely merely investors. Therefore, the instant real estate is not a club business property, and the victims are the victims are the defendants with all the authority on the instant real estate. Thus, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed loans received after the Defendant offered the instant real estate as collateral (hereinafter “the instant loans”).

Even if embezzlement is not established, embezzlement is not established.

2) Furthermore, the Defendant used the instant loan as development costs of the instant real estate and did not arbitrarily use it for personal purposes, etc., and the crime of embezzlement is not established.

3) Nevertheless, the court below convicted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, since the same trade property belongs to the partnership of the partner, as long as the same trade relationship exists, a partner has no right to dispose of his/her share of the same trade property at will, and if a partner voluntarily disposes of his/her share or consumess his/her share of the proceeds that he/she acquired from the disposition of the same trade property at will during the custody of the proceeds that he/she acquired from the disposition of the same trade property, he/she cannot be exempted from the crime of embezzlement (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do2777 delivered on September 28, 1982). In addition, in cases where the settlement of profit and loss has not been made between the partners, if a partner does not have the right to dispose of the same trade property belonging to the partnership of the partners at his/her own discretion, and if