[2] In a case where the representative director of a corporation fails to present documentary evidence as to the place of use while withdrawing and using the company's money, whether the intent of unlawful acquisition may be inferred (affirmative)

In the crime of occupational embezzlement, the term "an intention of unlawful acquisition" means an intention to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, such as his/her own property, and if the representative director of a corporation withdraws and uses the company's money, and fails to present evidentiary materials as to the place of its withdrawal and fails to provide reasonable explanation to obtain payment as to the place of use of the money, such money may be presumed to have been withdrawn from the company's money with the intention of unlawful acquisition and used for personal purposes (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2807, Aug. 22, 2003).

Examining the evidence of the first instance court cited by the court below in light of the records, it is just to find the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below guilty of the crime of occupational embezzlement in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, etc.

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

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)