1. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles on res judicata, whether the facts charged or the facts charged are identical should be determined by taking into account both normative elements and normative elements on the basis of Defendant’s act and social factual relations, taking into account the legal function of the identity of the facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do6911, Sept. 13, 2012). The lower court, even though the Defendant did not undergo the procedures, such as reporting to the competent authority as a result of the deliberation of the school juristic person D Institute, and did not think that he would undergo such procedures, acquired the instant real estate sales proceeds by deceiving the victim, “I would immediately go through the registration of transfer of ownership if the approval of the Educational Institute is obtained.” The criminal facts of embezzlement established as to which the Defendant was guilty are guilty, because the Defendant used the money received as the sales proceeds as above for the said school juristic person and embezzled the money for the said school juristic person, the content of the crime, such as the other party, etc., and the form of the act or benefit and interest of the crime.

On the other hand, the facts charged in this case determined that res judicata cannot be said to have effect on the final judgment.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the identity of facts charged and res judicata, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles on abuse of power of prosecution, the money received by the representative, etc. of the organization by deceiving the other party to the contract during the process of performing the contract concluded by the organization belongs to the organization, and the latter is kept by the representative, etc.