After January 5, 2017, when the victim was detained on a separate basis as of January 5, 2017, the defendant received a request from the head of the building management office on April 2017, when he/she had been under custody with other employees D to leave the office due to delinquency in the rent and management expenses of the office for the first patrolman on April 2017, and received a refund of the remainder of KRW 1.654,300,000 after deducting the unpaid rent and management expenses out of the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000, and delivered only KRW 1.1,100,000 to E under the pretext that he/she was under custody for the victim excluding the unpaid rent and management expenses for the telephone and Internet use, and then arbitrarily used KRW 52,320,000,000 for the actual office telephone and Internet use charges, and embezzled the remainder of KRW 50,000 at the director's expense.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor must prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing an intent to acquire unlawful acquisition in the course of occupational embezzlement. The proof ought to be proved by strict evidence with probative value that leads to a judge to have no reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5899, Jun. 24, 2010). (B) First, in regard to embezzlement of KRW 52,320,00, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant spent the amount for personal interest.

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, the defendant did not properly explain the place of use.