The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim C”) was actually one of the Defendant upon termination of the agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant in mistake of facts and I, and the Defendant actually invested the amount in the victim company. As such, the instant act of counter-payment of provisional revenues does not constitute embezzlement or is not recognized as the Defendant’s criminal intent of embezzlement.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) As alleged in the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, even if the Defendant actually becomes one shareholder of the victim company due to the termination of the partnership relationship between the Defendant and I, the stock company and the shareholder are clearly separate personality and the one shareholder’s assets immediately cannot be deemed as one shareholder’s own. Thus, the act of the one shareholder’s arbitrary disposal of the company’s funds constitutes embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do570, May 23, 1989; 95Do59, Mar. 14, 1995). Therefore, even if the partnership relationship with I is terminated, it does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of embezzlement against the victim company on the ground that the partnership relationship with I was terminated, and this part of the claim to the effect that the Defendant did not constitute embezzlement against the victim company on the ground that the partnership relationship with I was terminated, or that there was no criminal intent of embezzlement from 000 million won after the closure of the partnership relationship.