1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Since a stock company is an independent right holder separate from its shareholders, its understanding does not necessarily coincide with its understanding, if a shareholder or representative director disposes of the company's property voluntarily for private purposes, the crime of embezzlement cannot be exempted. In the crime of occupational embezzlement, the intent of illegal acquisition refers to the intent of disposing of the property of another person that is kept in violation of his/her duty to pursue his/her own or a third party's interest, such as the case of his/her own property. It is intended to return or compensate for it later.

Even if the intent of illegal acquisition is recognized, there is no obstacle to recognizing the intention of illegal acquisition, and as such, it is not necessary to deduct the amount of compensation or preservation after the fact from the amount of embezzlement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3045 delivered on August 19, 2005, etc.). B.

The lower court: (a) on September 1, 2008, the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) was selected as a participating enterprise in the project to support and promote G excavation in Gangwon-do along with the F University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation, the major institution in charge, and the East Sea as a participating institution; and (b) on April 3, 2009, the Defendant A received a subsidy of KRW 16 million designated for the purpose as the first technology development cost of the project on April 3, 2009 from the Defendant Company’s account to the Defendant Company’s account

4.6. Transfer of the said money to the account of the wife H to the same year from that time;

4. By December 27, 200, the first instance court affirmed the Defendant A’s withdrawal of the said money was found to constitute a crime of occupational embezzlement, by recognizing that the act of withdrawal of the said money constitutes a crime of occupational embezzlement.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, although there are some inappropriate points in the judgment of the court below, it is just for the court below to find Defendant A guilty of occupational embezzlement, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.