The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, ① The relationship between the Defendant and the victim is not a partnership relationship, but an anonymous partnership relationship, and even if there is a partnership relationship.

Even if the injured party expressed his intention to withdraw in the middle, the crime of occupational breach of trust or the crime of occupational embezzlement is not established on the premise of a partnership relationship.

② Since the amount that the Defendant borrowed from the hospital fire insurance to the Defendant’s personal account or transferred to the Defendant’s account in the name of a third party with respect to Hanwon was used for the operation of Hanwon, there is a criminal intent of occupational breach of trust or embezzlement or intent of unlawful acquisition.

subsection (b) of this section.

③ Although the Defendant received a secured loan due to business necessity, since there was no loss to the victim by fully repaying the loan thereafter, the crime of occupational breach of trust is not established.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, one year of suspended execution, and one community service order) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles 1) The Defendant alleged in the lower court that the relationship between the Defendant and the victim is not a partnership but an anonymous partnership relationship. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in the column of “determination on the Defendant’s argument”. Examining the above judgment of the lower court in comparison with the record, the lower court’s determination is justified.

B. On the assertion that the relationship between A and A and A has been terminated by the declaration of intention of the victim's withdrawal in the middle, there is no evidence to prove that the victim clearly expressed his/her intention to withdrawal from the relationship ( even if so, the request for settlement of the victim's dividend, etc.