1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the crime of paragraphs (1) through (4) of the first instance judgment, the representative director of a company or a person who, corresponding thereto, has carried out de facto affairs concerning the custody or operation of the company's funds, withdraws and used a large amount of company funds under the name of provisional payment, etc., and there is no agreement on interest or maturity for payment, and it does not go through legitimate procedures such as the resolution of the board of directors, etc. without going through legitimate procedures such as the resolution of the board of directors is nothing more than to lend and dispose of the company funds at will

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do135, Apr. 27, 2006; 2010Do3399, May 27, 2010). Meanwhile, the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement refers to the intention of disposal of another person’s property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of seeking his/her own or a third party’s interest, such as in fact or by law as he/she owns another person’s property in violation of his/her duties, and it does not interfere with the recognition of the intent of unlawful acquisition even if he/she wishes to return, reimburse or preserve

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s arbitrary use of the funds of the victim L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) by the Defendant constitutes an occupational embezzlement on the grounds of the intent of embezzlement and the intent of unlawful acquisition, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court. In so doing, it is justifiable for the lower court to have determined that the Defendant’s voluntary use of the funds of the victim Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) constitutes an occupational embezzlement on the grounds of the intent of embezzlement and intent of unlawful acquisition. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on