The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The defense counsel of the defendant's defense at the third trial of the court of appeal asserts that the crime of embezzlement of Section 1-B as stated in the judgment of the court below constitutes a substantive concurrent crime, not a single comprehensive crime, and the statute of limitations has expired for the part instituting the public prosecution after five years from the date of the crime. In addition, the victim owned 1/2 of the original land and buildings during the sixth trial of the court of appeal.

Even if the victim expressed the victim’s right to share, the victim’s right to share was extinguished by transferring the right to collateral security established in relation to the land and building of this case to X, and the Defendant repaid the secured debt to X, so the victim’s right to share was all extinguished. Accordingly, the victim’s act of consuming all proceeds from the use or disposal of the land and building of this case does not constitute embezzlement. However, all of them asserted that the period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal expired, and cannot be deemed legitimate grounds for appeal.

Around June 29, 2005, among the facts charged in the instant case, the statute of limitations has already expired prior to the institution of the instant prosecution.

B. On November 13, 2003, the land of this case was divided into the same K 18.3 square meters from the land of this case, which was located after the above division on December 19, 2005, and thereafter, the land of this case was again divided into the part of the land of this case remaining after the above division, and thereafter, the area was reduced to 466.3 square meters in its size) and the above Moel building (hereinafter “the building of this case”) owned by the Defendant alone, and it cannot be deemed that the victim owns 1/2 shares in relation to the land and building of this case. Thus, even if the Defendant arbitrarily consumed all profits from the use or disposal of the land of this case and building of this case, it was embezzlement.