The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court deemed that the Defendant started to retain the victim E’s property only after December 2012, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty of the Defendant’s act of disposing of the victim’s money.

However, the Defendant had the custody of the victim’s funds during the period indicated in the facts charged, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “a person who keeps another’s property” or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on embezzlement.

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were determined by the lower court to have embezzled KRW 31,420,000 of the victim’s funds from January 10, 2013 to May 10, 2013. However, since the above money was owned by the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant embezzled another’s property even if the Defendant disposed of it, and the Defendant did not have any intention to acquire illegal property at the time of the disposition. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. In order to establish embezzlement, a custodian of property must have a legal or de facto consignment relationship between the owner of the property and the owner of the property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do2413, Jun. 24, 2005; 2007Do1082, May 31, 2007). The consignment relationship does not necessarily need to be established under a contract, such as lending of a loan for use, delegation of a right, etc., and may be established in accordance with the customary rules of business management, customs, cooking, etc., and the owner is not necessarily required to directly entrust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do1778, Oct. 13, 198; 201Do17396, Mar. 24, 2011).