1. As to the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to the intent to dispose of the property of another person, which is in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own or a third party’s interest, as if it were to be his/her own possession. In cases where the Defendant denies it due to his/her internal intent, the facts constituting such subjective elements have no choice but to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance to the nature of things given (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do6457, Sept. 8, 2011). Furthermore, the lower court’s determination that the representative director of the company or the person who has de facto been in charge of the business of keeping or operating the company’s funds for purposes other than the purpose of provisional payment of funds by the company for the purpose of using them as interest or maturity, and that a legitimate procedure, such as resolution of the board of directors, etc. goes beyond the scope ordinarily acceptable and arbitrarily lends funds for private purposes, such as the victim’s position.

The decision was determined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to logical and empirical rules, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.