beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Around March 19, 2016, the Defendant: (a) decided to operate CCTV sales business in the name of the victim D and E; (b) the Defendant invested KRW 40 million in each of the said businesses; and (c) the victim jointly operated the said business, and (d) purchased a Fone Star Sheet with a total of KRW 14 million at the market price around April 18, 2016 and used it for the said business; (b) around 12:00 on June 9, 2016, the Defendant refused to return the said passenger car parked in the said building parking lot in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seo-gu, Seoul, and the premises of the aggregate of KRW 2,205,920, 920, which were kept in the said combined vehicle.
Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the total amount of 16,205,920 won owned jointly with the victim.
2. Determination
(a) Where one member has expressed his/her intention to withdraw in relation to two partnership relations, the partnership relations shall be terminated in terms of the nature thereof, but, except in exceptional circumstances, the partnership relations shall not commence liquidation without dissolution, and the partnership property which belongs to the partnership's joint ownership of the remaining members shall remain between the person who has left the partnership and the person who has left the partnership and belongs to the sole ownership of the remaining members, only the calculation of refund, etc. of the amount of investment following the withdrawal shall remain;
As such, in the partnership relationship of two persons, if one of them terminates the partnership agreement with a complaint, and withdraws from the partnership agreement, he/she separately disposed of the partnership property.
In addition, the crime of embezzlement is not established, and in such a case, the remaining members did not dispose of the partnership's property and pay it to the association members who withdrawn from the return of the investment amount, and even if they consumed at will, it does not constitute the crime of embezzlement merely constitutes the non-performance of the obligation to return the investment amount under civil law (see Supreme Court Decisions 82Do3236, Feb. 22, 1983; 2001Do2707, Jun. 28, 2002, etc.).