A. The Defendant, as a co-representative director of the victim company in charge of the settlement of accounts, has a full right of management and fund execution as a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, as the victim company.

The Defendant purchased a self-durged vehicle, but only registered in the name of the Defendant in order to benefit from the discount of persons with disabilities, because the Defendant had two fishermen who participate in the production of teaching materials while using a personal ma business vehicle as a business-use vehicle and has to move to the recording room in Namyang-ju on several occasions.

Even if the defendant was subject to a disposition not guilty of all the remaining parts of KRW 116,300,000,000 paid by the defendant in relation to the victim company, the defendant should be sentenced to not guilty of the facts charged of this case.

B. In light of the details and intent of the case in which the sentencing was unfair, the purpose, and the Defendant’s primary offender, etc., the sentence sentenced by the lower court (3 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to the intent to take the same disposition as his/her own property in breach of his/her occupational duty for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party.

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 use, and fails to provide reasonable explanation to obtain the reason for withdrawal and the place of use, he/she may withdraw the company's money with the intent of unlawful acquisition and use it for personal purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2510, Jun. 27, 2013). Various circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, namely, the defendant and E provide intellectual property rights and make investments therein.