The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the defendant and the victim of mistake of facts completed a partnership relationship by preparing a written statement of payment on October 5, 201, the defendant did not have a status as a custodian of embezzlement, the judgment of the court below which neglected it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if the Defendant was guilty of an unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, around June 2009, invested KRW 50 million with the victim E and agreed to work together with the Defendant. The Defendant invested KRW 40 million from the victim and took an investment of KRW 40 million from July of the same year, and has overall control over the sale of goods and fund management as an optician of the above within the boundary point from July of the same year.

On October 5, 2011, the Defendant prepared a letter of payment that the Defendant would return the amount of 40 million won invested to the victim who was not well in the operation of the Ansan store by July 31, 2015.

Nevertheless, on May 15, 2012, the Defendant, without the consent of the victim, embezzled the money at will on his/her own account while using KRW 26 million for his/her business for the victim, in order to sell the above awareness points without obtaining KRW 50 million from G, and to search for the house and goods machinery and apparatus that were executed by the buyer with KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment on conviction against the Defendant by comprehensively taking account of the evidence indicated in its judgment.

C. 1) In the event a part of the partners withdraw from the partnership relationship, the remaining partners are not in the position of keeping the business property for the withdrawing partners (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do140, May 28, 1996). Therefore, in order to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant sold an inner point and the Defendant’s business partnership agreement remains valid at the time of using the sales price.