A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the point of occupational embezzlement as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts charged) ① deposited in an account in the name of the association

540,000 won was transferred to the F account in the name of F, and the F was released to manage the workplace at the time, so this part is not related to the Defendant. ② The Defendant used common expenses of union employees to purchase membership rights to I golf course to promote the welfare of employees and support their business activities. The common expenses of the said union employees are not strictly limited, and thus, the Defendant used funds for purposes other than those of use.

In light of the fact that the above golf club membership cannot be seen as being a bearer membership that can be used by anyone if he/she owns the above golf club membership, and the purchase price of KRW 5.4 million has the nature of a security deposit that can be returned at the expiration of the contract period, there was an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition from the defendant

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The intention of unlawful acquisition in embezzlement is deemed to be the intention of unlawful acquisition.

“Along with the intention of returning, compensating for, or preserving another’s property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party, it refers to an intention to dispose of the same property as that of his/her own, and it does not interfere with recognizing the intention of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do75, Sept. 13, 1983; 2005Do741, Apr. 29, 2005; 2005Do3045, Aug. 19, 2005). The Defendant asserted in the lower court that, as otherwise alleged in the misapprehension of the aforementioned facts and legal principles, the lower court also argued that the Defendant is identical to that of the employees of the association of this case who had a credit cooperative E (hereinafter “the instant cooperative”).