A. The Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts was a trade relationship.

With the consent of J and I, borrowed money from E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter only referred to as “victim”) and used it as a full-time loan, and purchased a household with a corporate card.

Therefore, it is nothing more than that of the above acts with the approval of the general meeting of shareholders and the board of directors.

In addition, it can be seen that the damaged company has enjoyed a well-being, so it can be seen that it was made in terms of the welfare of the defendant.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the act such as embezzlement and breach of trust as stated in the facts charged.

B. The case was not raised after the complaint was filed by the Defendant, who was punished as the complaint by the Defendant’s improper assertion of sentencing.

The Defendant repaid all the borrowed money.

J and I’s embezzlement makes it impossible for the Defendant to engage in any business any longer.

In full view of these circumstances, the punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts does not necessarily coincide with the understanding of the relevant legal doctrine as an independent right holder separate from the shareholders. Thus, if a shareholder or representative director arbitrarily disposes of the company’s property for private purposes, such as providing it as security for a third party’s financing, then he/she cannot be exempted from liability for crime of embezzlement regardless of whether there was a resolution by the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors on such disposition. The intention of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement is the

means the intention to dispose of the property of another person in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party, and even if there is an intention to return, compensate or preserve it later, it does not interfere with recognizing the intention of illegal acquisition (Supreme Court Decision 2005. Aug. 8, 2005).