The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

except that, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the victim C and E’s statement in the investigative agency and the court below’s decision; and (b) the statement and the copy of the statement of transactions in the court below, the defendant could fully recognize the fact of embezzlement by arbitrarily consuming the amount of KRW 20 million out of KRW 38 million deposited by the victim and being kept in custody in order to transfer to E; (c) but the court below acquitted the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding such facts.

2. Determination

A. A. Around May 2010, the summary of the facts charged entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant: (a) around May 5, 2010, the Defendant: (b) entered into an agreement with E, the main proprietor of the business, to take over the cosmetic of Seodaemun-gu Seoul at premium of KRW 43 million and deposit money of KRW 15 million; and (c) concluded a contract with E, the main proprietor of the business, to take over the cosmetic of KRW 4.5 million, a down payment of KRW 4.5 million, with the Defendant’s monthly wage of KRW 1.5 million.

Around June 14, 2010, the Defendant: (a) transferred the above beauty room from E to E in the course of taking over and taking over the beauty room; (b) while the Defendant deposited KRW 15 million in the Defendant’s corporate bank account and stored for the victim KRW 5 million in the sum of the amount payable for the premium to E, KRW 38 million, and KRW 15 million to be paid to the lessor of the beauty room; and (c) on the same day, the Defendant embezzled the amount equivalent to KRW 18 million out of the amount payable for the premium and KRW 38 million for the above money payable to E for the victim; and (d) embezzled the same by voluntarily withdrawing for the non-use without paying the remaining KRW 20 million to E.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant paid KRW 20 million in cash to E in addition to remitting KRW 18 million to E, the lower court’s determination based on the witness E, C, and F’s statutory statement and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant’s assertion that the cash KRW 20 million, which the Defendant had at the time, was delivered to E is credibility.