The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. misunderstanding of the gist of the grounds for appeal (the 62,440,00 won, which the defendant deposited in the account in this case, is the money of C Co., Ltd., and the withdrawal and use of the amount equivalent to the above amount do not constitute the crime of occupational embezzlement) and unfair sentencing decision 2.

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, since the business property belongs to the partnership of the partner, as long as the business relationship exists, the partner does not have the right to dispose of the shares of the business property at will, and if one of the partners uses the proceeds acquired from the disposal of the business property at will or the disposal of the business property at will, he cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of embezzlement. In addition, if the partner did not dispose of the business property belonging to the partnership of the partner at will if the partner did not dispose of the profits and losses among the partners, the partner does not have the right to dispose of the business property belonging to the partnership of the partner at will. Thus, if the partner has embezzled the business property at will during the custody of the business property at will, the partner bears the responsibility for the crime of embezzlement against the whole amount embezzled at will regardless of his share ratio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do7423, Oct. 15, 2009; 2007Do10645, Feb. 14, 2008).

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant does not have only twice the fine, except for the instant case committed in the course of failure of the pertinent business and the violation of the Labor Standards Act in the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the Defendant continues to conduct business.