The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was that the victim limited liability company, in which the Defendant served, was implementing the taxi commission scheme rather than the full-time management system, and under the taxi commission scheme, the transport earnings exceeding the taxi commission belongs to the taxi engineer. Therefore, in relation to excess transport earnings, the taxi engineer is not in the position of the person who takes the custody of another’s property.

Therefore, the defendant did not pay transport earnings exceeding the taxi commission to the victim company while operating the taxi.

Even if the crime of occupational embezzlement is not established, it is not established.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was from October 1, 2010 to take charge of the duties to pay back to the company after receiving transportation revenue from passengers by driving the taxi of the said company from the victim limited liability company as a taxi driver.

On October 3, 2012, the Defendant operated the above taxi at Incheon Japan, and received KRW 149,500 from passengers to keep the transport income for business purposes.

On October 3, 2012, the Defendant embezzled KRW 104,70,00 out of transport income to the complainants without paying KRW 44,800, and embezzled it at his own discretion without paying KRW 44,800 out of transport income at the Samri Transportation Office located in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, in a manner that did not deposit KRW 889,700 in total of transport income over 25 times until November 20, 2012, as shown in the annexed List of Crimes.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

C. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts charged in a single criminal trial for the judgment of the political party, and the conviction of guilt shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of being guilty.