The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant concluded a partnership agreement with the victim that the Defendant would have the right to dispose of 50% of the funds arising from the E operation of the victim.

Therefore, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed the amount of KRW 30 million equivalent to KRW 50 million out of KRW 60 million.

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

2) As to KRW 1,60,000 ( = 4,160 million - 30 million - 1,000 won) of Ghana exceeding KRW 30,000,00, it was returned after temporary use, and the defendant has no intent to obtain unlawful acquisition.

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

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, 1) Whether the Defendant has the right to dispose of the loan money belongs to the partnership of the partner. As long as the business relationship exists, the partner has no right to dispose of his/her share of the business property at his/her own discretion, and if he/she arbitrarily consumess his/her share of the money that he/she acquired through the disposal of the business property during his/her custody, he/she cannot be exempted from the liability

In addition, if the settlement of profits and losses was not made between one partner, a partner does not have the right to dispose of the property of the same kind belonging to the partnership of the partner at his/her own discretion. Thus, if a partner arbitrarily embezzled the property of the same business during his/her custody, then he/she shall be liable for the crime of embezzlement against the whole amount embezzled at his/her own discretion regardless of his/her share ratio (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17684, Jun. 10, 201). Accordingly, this is recognized from the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.