The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that this judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the agreement between the Defendant Company G (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and the victim is a service contract for the Defendant Company to provide services to the victim and to receive the payment thereof, and that money paid by F is service charges. Thus, this money is not subject to embezzlement on the ground that its use and purpose cannot be deemed a limited investment or joint project cost (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles). The judgment of the lower court on the grounds that the punishment (no. 10 months imprisonment) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable (unfair sentencing).

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) In a case where a person entrusts another person with a limited fund and uses a fund for purposes other than its limited purpose while its use or purpose is strictly limited, embezzlement is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6988, May 27, 2004). Since the same business property belongs to the partnership of the partner, as long as the same business relationship exists, the partner has no right to arbitrarily dispose of his/her share in the business property, and if he/she arbitrarily disposes of his/her share in the business property or consumes it during his/her custody, he/she cannot be exempted from the liability of embezzlement.

In addition, if the settlement of profit and loss was not made between one partner, a partner does not have the right to dispose of the business property belonging to the partnership of the partner at his/her own discretion. Thus, if a partner arbitrarily embezzled the business property during his/her custody, then he/she is liable for the crime of embezzlement against the whole amount embezzled at his/her own discretion regardless of his/her share ratio (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17684, Jun. 10, 201, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances recognized by the court below according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below are examined. In light of the above legal principles, the defendant arbitrarily uses the money received from the injured party as a joint project expense for a purpose unrelated to the joint project.