The representative director of a company or a person who has carried out de facto administrative affairs related to the custody or management of the company's funds corresponding thereto is not an agreement on interest or maturity for withdrawal or use of large company funds for purposes other than provisional payment for the company, and the resolution of the board of directors does not go through legitimate procedures such as resolution of the board of directors is in excess of the generally acceptable scope, and the company's funds are arbitrarily lent and disposed of for private purposes by using the status of the representative director, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do135, Apr. 27, 2006). Meanwhile, it is an intention of unlawful acquisition in embezzlement in the course of occupational embezzlement.

“Along with the intent of returning or compensating for any property owned by another person in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party, it does not interfere with recognizing the intent of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3431, Jun. 2, 2006). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the computation of the amount of unlawful acquisition or embezzlement in the crime of embezzlement, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.