The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding the legal principles, returned all of the investments to the victims around September 2012, and the victims received a distribution of more than the amount invested by the victims as profits and completed the instant agreement, and thus, the crime of embezzlement is not established even if the Defendant used the proceeds from the sale of the mass derivatives.

Even if the agreement on the operation of a partnership exists, the Defendant terminated the agreement with the victims.

I think that the sale proceeds are used, so there is no intention of embezzlement.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant’s use of the business property for personal purposes during the storage of the business property constitutes embezzlement is justifiable, since the Defendant and the victims did not settle the distribution of profits and losses pursuant to the instant agreement. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as pointed out by the Defendant.

① On April 2012, the Defendant, the Victim C, and D engaged in a single-lane inter-frequency distribution business and thereafter engaged in a two-lane inter-frequency distribution business.

In this regard, it seems that there is no proper settlement about the distribution of profits due to the first business relationship.

② The victim C and D consistently stated at an investigative agency and the lower court to the effect that “Anywhere they were sold in the course of engaging in the two-wave distribution business of the instant case, no accurate confirmation is made about how much the profits accrued and there is no deficit that has gone through the settlement procedures among the partners.”

(3) The defendant from October 4, 2012 to December 12 of the same month.