The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are not operated by E 502 E in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, with the victim and independently manage the investment fund for the operation of the instant KIKO under the terms and conditions of profit distribution. As such, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim is not an internal partnership relationship, but an anonymous association relationship.

Therefore, even if the defendant arbitrarily disposed of the KIKO of this case and consumed the price thereof, it cannot be said that he is a person who keeps another's property, and therefore, he cannot be the subject of the crime of occupational embezzlement.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Since one of the union members arbitrarily consumes the proceeds acquired from the disposition of the union property, the liability for embezzlement cannot be exempted. This legal doctrine also applies to the so-called internal union where the relationship of an association is internally and externally revealed, although it is a partnership relationship. In the case of an anonymous association, unlike the union or internal union, since it is the other party's property, the business operator is not in the position of a person who keeps another's property, and therefore, even if the business operator arbitrarily consumes the business profit, etc., the crime of embezzlement cannot be established. Whether a legal relationship constitutes an internal association or an anonymous association should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the existence of joint business between the parties, whether a union member is involved in the union's affairs with the right to inspect the business, whether the consent of all the parties to dispose of or change the property, etc. is necessary (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do5014, Nov. 24, 2011).