The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

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

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was delivered by the victimized company and consigned sales, and agreed to deposit the sales proceeds to the victimized company.

According to the consignment sale agreement, the Defendant received a total of three times from the victimized company and sold each of them to the auction brokers in the old-old fisheries market, and embezzled the total of KRW 77,778,311 for personal purposes without paying the sales proceeds to the victimized company.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty by fully recognizing the facts charged of the instant case.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s grounds for appeal.

In case of a consignment sale, the ownership of the goods consigned shall belong to the mandator, and the sale proceeds shall be collected, except in any other special agreement or special circumstances, and shall revert to the truster simultaneously

As such, if the commission agent uses or consumes it, the crime of embezzlement is established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 81Do2619 delivered on February 23, 1982, etc.). However, for recognition as commission agent, a commission agent refers to a person who engages in the business of selling and selling goods or securities on another person’s account in his/her name (Article 101 of the Commercial Act). As such, for recognition as commission agent, the economic effect of selling the consigned goods, i.e., the relationship between the profit or loss from

In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court of the court below and this court’s duly adopted and examined evidence, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to view the defendant as a custodian with respect to the money received from the victimized company as a commission agent of the victimized company, and otherwise, the victimized company.