The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Cheongju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is as follows: “The Defendant, on October 25, 2010, entrusted the Victim with the Victim’s Dob Co., Ltd., and sold 210 million won of the purchase price to E; and the Defendant, on October 26, 2010, remitted the amount of KRW 150 million of the purchase price from E to October 26, 2010; KRW 45 million of the sale price; and KRW 15 million of the money deposited for the Victim on November 26, 2010; and then, on October 26, 2010, transferred the amount of KRW 120 million to the Victim on behalf of the Victim; and then embezzled the amount of KRW 90 million of the remainder by voluntarily consuming the Defendant’s personal debt, etc. around that time.

“” is:

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, is difficult to recognize the facts charged of the instant case only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, on the grounds that the victim’s statement, the only evidence corresponding to the facts charged of the instant case, is inconsistent with the most different evidence, or is inconsistent with objective facts, as to the circumstance where the victim’s statement, the only evidence that corresponds to the facts charged of the instant case, was sold rapidly, the method of payment

In light of the foregoing, the first judgment of conviction was reversed and the acquittal was pronounced.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. The ownership of a consignment in consignment sale is owned by the delegating, and the sale proceeds shall belong to the truster simultaneously with the receipt of the consignment. Thus, if the commission agent uses or consumes the consignment or the sale proceeds at his own discretion, the crime of embezzlement is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do813, Mar. 27, 1990). The intention of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement is the intention of embezzlement.

means an intention to dispose of the property of another person in violation of his/her duty for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party, such as his/her own possession, and even if he/she has an intention to return, reimburse, or preserve it later, he/she shall be subject to illegal acquisition.