The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding ① The Defendant merely acquired the Eart’s business from C and operated it independently, but did not operate the Eart as a joint business with C, and thus, the Eart’s credit card sales revenue does not fall under the same business property, i.e., property owned by others, and ii) domestic affairs.

Even if the defendant is not a mere personal debt but a debt borrowed to raise the essential partner's money in the process of preparing the opening of the E-art, so the defendant has an intention of unlawful acquisition.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The defendant alleged that the above argument was identical to that of the facts alleged in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above argument in light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court. In so doing, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and this part of the defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2) The above argument that the business property belongs to the partnership of the partners. As long as the business relationship exists, a partner has no right to dispose of the shares in the business property at will, and if a partner arbitrarily disposes of the shares in the business property or consumes the proceeds acquired from the disposal of the business property at will during custody, he/she cannot be exempted from the liability of embezzlement.

In addition, if a partner did not settle the profits and losses between one partner, the partner does not have the right to dispose of the business property belonging to the partnership of the partner at his own discretion, and if a partner has embezzled the business property at his own discretion during the custody of the business property, he embezzled regardless of the ratio of shares.