All of the appeal filed by A and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor against Defendant B shall be dismissed.

A. Defendant A1 of the misapprehension of the legal principle does not constitute “the alteration of the purpose of use” under Article 28(1) of the Private School Act. Furthermore, since the above lending act conforms to the purpose of using the fundamental property for profit, it cannot be deemed that there was an intention of unlawful acquisition of the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement). Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case against the Defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution) against the Defendant on the unfair sentencing

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B of the Prosecutor (fine 2.5 million won) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle

A. Violation of the Private School Act: (a) Article 28(1) of the Private School Act provides that a school foundation shall obtain permission from the competent authorities when it disposes of its basic property, is derived from the public interest purpose of promoting the sound development of private schools by preventing an educational foundation established for the establishment and management of a private school from unfairly reducing its basic property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du14357, Dec. 8, 201). In full view of the legislative purpose of the Private School Act and the relationship with other acts, etc., “the purpose of use” as subject to restriction on disposition is not “sale, donation, exchange, provision of security, burden of obligations, and waiver of rights, which may infringe on the above legislative purpose among the acts that cause a change in the status of basic property.”