The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the crime of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle, the defendant, who is the main part of convenience store, had the key to the treasury, and has observed the convenience store alone.

Since the defendant acquired the money and valuables of the convenience store that he had kept, the crime of this case is not larceny but constitutes embezzlement.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The premise of this part of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is that the Defendant was in the position of keeping money and valuables in the convenience store at the time of committing the crime under the entrustment or trust of the victim.

However, considering the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the following circumstances recognized by the witness D’s statement at the court of the trial, it is difficult to accept the above argument.

As in the case of this case, the occupation of employees of convenience stores is merely possession of the so-called commercial relationship under the control or supervision of the business owner of convenience stores who employs them, i.e., possession of the so-called commercial relationship, and in the case of employees, it is not possible to assert an independent right of possession in relation to the owner of convenience stores

Furthermore, at the time of committing the crime, the Defendant was in the curriculum prior to entering into a regular employment contract with the victim.

Since the situation where simple work such as selling goods and keeping the goods at the convenience store was taught, the victim did not have any reason to keep the safe in particular within the convenience store under his own responsibility.

If the victim informs the defendant of the location of the credit cooperative and the key to the credit cooperative, the victim seems to be only informed of the current status of convenience store or to provide information to properly handle the simple work of employees.

In fact, the victims are their own houses or places located in the convenience store building.