The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant received money from the complainant for the purpose of using the money in order to maintain crocdidy or crocf in the vehicle as agreed with the complainant C at the time of the instant case, and thus, the Defendant does not constitute the crime of embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. A. The complainant, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, is the person operating a meal service company (ju) D, and the person operating a food service business in E held on April 30, 2015, and the Defendant assisted the complainant in the performance of the aforementioned business.

On April 27, 2015, the Defendant requested the complainant to rent 2 food trucks to be used in E food set from the victim on April 10:29, the Defendant received 3.5 million won from the post office account in the name of the Defendant to transfer 3.5 million won in the name of rent to the business leasing food trucks, and stored for the complainant, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed the said day money for personal purposes, such as paying insurance premiums.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property of the complainant.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

3. On April 27, 2015, the fact that the Defendant received a transfer of KRW 3.5 million from the complainant on or around April 27, 2015 is recognized not only by the complainant but also by the Defendant.

In this regard, the defendant's and complainant's assertion on the nature of the above 3.5 million won are in conflict.

In other words, the complainant asserts that the above KRW 3.5 million had the complainant delivered the rent to the food truck leasing company to the defendant, but the defendant asserted that the above money was part of the service cost that the complainant would receive from the complainant (not the rent to deliver to the food truck leasing company).

The defendant and complainant's above assertion.