The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant served as the Secretary-General of the School Foundation D (hereinafter “D”), the Director-General of the D, the President of the D-affiliated F University, the President of the D-affiliated F University, and G as the Director-General of the F University.

E and G were convicted of having been convicted of violating the Higher Education Act due to the suspicion of granting a bachelor’s degree by unlawful means, such as giving the students with the number of school days unfairly credits to the mother and child.

On June 7, 2012, the Defendant, in collusion with B, embezzled the said money by paying KRW 5,500,000,000 for attorney-at-law appointment in the case of violation of the Higher Education Act by E, and on September 3, 2012, KRW 3.3 million for attorney-at-law appointment in the case of violation of the G Higher Education Act.

B. The lower court rendered a fine of KRW 1.5 million to the Defendant on the ground that the instant facts charged were recognized based on the evidence presented in the summary of the evidence as indicated in the lower judgment.

On this ground, the defendant appealed on the ground of mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing, and the trial prior to remand rejected all the grounds for appeal by the defendant and dismissed the defendant's appeal.

On the other hand, the defendant appealed on the ground of a misunderstanding of legal principles, and the court of final appeal accepted the defendant's argument and reversed and remanded the judgment of the party before remanding.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In accordance with the direction of B, a temporary president of D, the Defendant: (a) stated approval of the disbursement resolution on the cost of attorney appointment by the president E of the F University and the principal of the school affairs; and (b) did not commit an occupational embezzlement in collusion with B.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In the crime of embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition is in breach of the purpose of the consignment by the person who keeps another’s property and without authority for one’s own or a third party’s own interest.