The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the defendant, without an agreement on the settlement of the first unit of the excavation search period owned by the victim limited partnership company D (hereinafter “victim company”), registered the transfer of ownership in the name of H and embezzled can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. If two or more persons form an organization to conduct a joint business, it constitutes a partnership under the Civil Act (Article 703(1) of the Civil Act), and if one member expresses his/her intention to withdraw in a joint business, the partnership's relationship is terminated in its nature, but, barring any special circumstance, the partnership's property is not dissolved, and its liquidation is not commenced, and there is only the calculation of refund, etc. of investment due to withdrawal between the person who left the association and the person who left the association because one member of the partnership did not own the remaining member of the partnership. Therefore, in the partnership relationship of two persons, even if one person terminates the partnership contract with a complaint to the business conditions and only disposes of the remaining member's property, it does not constitute embezzlement even if the two persons independently dispose of the remaining property of the partnership.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2707, Jun. 28, 2002).

The lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, comprehensively explained the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, concluded a partnership agreement with the Defendant and I to jointly operate a limited partnership company B (hereinafter “B”) with the aim of collecting aggregate around January 10, 2014, and decided to take over another corporate victim for the purpose of collecting aggregate on the ground of the issue of permission to extract aggregate. As such, the lower court determined that I would take over another corporate victim for the purpose of collecting aggregate from J around January 23, 2014.