Therefore, the Defendant merely used 3 million won as compensation owned by the Defendant, and did not embezzled the money of the meeting of the representative of the occupants of this case (B). The Defendant asserts to the effect that the illegality of the Defendant’s consent should be avoided as it was executed in accordance with the resolution of the meeting of representative of the occupants of this case even if 3 million won is the ownership of the meeting of representative of the occupants of this case).2.

A. The intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement on occupational part of the relevant legal doctrine

The term "a person who keeps another's property in custody in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party's interest refers to an intention to dispose of another's property in fact or by law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do4005, Dec. 27, 2000; 2001Do5439, Feb. 5, 2002). A person entrusted with a limited amount of money and executes it with the purpose of using funds for other than the limited purpose, and thus, it constitutes embezzlement as it itself realizes the intention of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do3929, Sept. 28, 2005; 201Do12408, May 10, 2012).

Even if there is no obstacle to the establishment of embezzlement or breach of trust, and the act of embezzlement or breach of trust cannot be justified with the execution of the budget due to the decision (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8193 Decided July 22, 2004).