All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for Appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. As to the crime of embezzlement (all the Defendants) the Defendants were legally forced to enter into the instant partnership agreement due to the reasons attributable to D, and thereafter, the act of paying settlement and piece rates pursuant to Article 5 of the same partnership agreement and Articles 724 and 87 of the Civil Act does not constitute embezzlement, and even if settlement should be made pursuant to Article 8 of the family partnership agreement, the Defendants determined that it is legitimate to settle the accounts pursuant to Article 5, etc. of the same partnership agreement as above, and there was no intention to acquire unlawful profits for the Defendants.

B. As to the crime of interference with business (defendant B), Defendant B changed the password of the entrance door of F corporation office after the closure of the Dong industry with D, the victim’s duties at the time of the change is not subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act.

Judgment

A. As to the crime of embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do7423, Oct. 15, 2009; 2010Do17684, Jun. 10, 2011); the lower court determined that the Defendants and the victims of the crime began a new partnership relationship on Oct. 19, 201 with the partners, so long as the partnership relationship remains effective, a partner has no right to dispose of the shares of the partnership business property at will, and if he/she arbitrarily consumess the shares of the partner at will during the custody of the proceeds acquired from the disposal of the partnership business property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do7423, Oct. 15, 2009; 2010Do17684, Oct. 19, 2018). However, after the commencement of the partnership relationship with the victims of the new agreement on Oct. 11, 2018.