The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the status of custodian, and the agreement between the Defendant and the victim constitutes an anonymous association under the Commercial Act. The Defendant was a business operator of an anonymous association and did not have the status of keeping the victim’s property.

B. Despite the fact-finding that only 21,260,216 won, which is equivalent to 40% of the amount obtained by deducting the deficit during the business period, from the amount of the lease deposit that was refunded by the Defendant for the 98 million won, was embezzled, the lower judgment recognized the amount of 39,200,000 won equivalent to 40% of the total amount of 98 million won as the embezzlement, and thus, there is an error of mistake of facts.

C. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim visited the convenience point of three to four times a week during the first four months during which the operation of the convenience store was commenced and gave advice on the status of display, employee education, etc., and the details of sales have been limited, and the victim possessed the original lease contract to prevent the defendant from arbitrarily disposing of the lease deposit, so the agreement between the defendant and the victim cannot be deemed as an anonymous association agreement that provides the property of the victim's investment as the property of the business operator. Accordingly, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion in the above purport is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. We examine the determination of the crossing amount, and the partnership's business property belongs to the partnership of the partners. Thus, the partnership's business relationship is also a partnership.