The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the labor contract between the Defendants and the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) the Defendants agreed to deduct the shortage from the benefits in the event that the Defendants are unable to pay monthly transport earnings standard to the damaged company. As such, the victimized company has practically implemented the taxi commission scheme as above.

However, the above labor contract that provides for the taxi commission scheme shall be null and void in violation of Article 21(1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act. Thus, the defendants cannot be deemed to have a position of a person who keeps the money stated in

B. The Defendants were permitted by I, the business director of the victimized company, to use part of the transportation revenues at will due to food, tobacco value, expressway tolls, etc., and even if there was no permission for such disposition, even if the victimized company did not pay the full amount of the transportation revenue, and thus, it was believed that there was the above permission for the above disposition since the damaged company did not make the above payment of the transportation revenue. Thus, there was no intention for illegal acquisition or occupational embezzlement to the Defendants.

C. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in mistake or misapprehension of legal principle.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendants paid the full transport income on the day between the victimized company and the company, and the wages are paid to the company in accordance with the separate wage standard table, with respect to the amount exceeding the standard amount of monthly transport income (2,125,000 won per day (85,000 won per day in the case of the defendant A, and 2,200,000 won in the case of the defendant B (8,000 won per day), and 60% in the case of the worker B, and 40% in the case of the shortage, the worker shall be paid as piece rate by allocating it to 60% and the employer shall be paid as piece rate, but the labor contract (hereinafter referred to as "the labor contract in this case").