Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the victims of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles fully delegated dispositions, such as one op range, two mixings, etc., which the victims owned by the victims, through the settlement of the relationship between the victims, the crime of embezzlement is not established because there is no intention of unlawful acquisition even if the Defendant disposes of the said joints.

B. The lower court’s sentence (a fine of three million won, a suspended sentence of one year) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the victim E is to operate the store with the trade name “D” at “I” store operated by the Defendant upon investment of the victim F, and entered into a short-term use contract with the Defendant around February 9, 2017. ② The victim E purchased one opter for the business of “D” and two mixed machines, etc., and decided that the Defendant would discontinue the store operation because the business was not good; ③ the Defendant would directly operate the D store to distribute profits to the victims, while the Defendant operated approximately two months store from May 1, 2017, but instead, operated a approximately KRW 15 million store, ④ the victims or the victims on July 10, 2017, and the Defendant could promptly divide the amount of the victim’s 1,500,000,000 won into the E store and arrange the fact that the victim’s 1,500,000.

Furthermore, the following circumstances are consistent from the investigative agency to the court below, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.