1. As to the grounds of appeal on DNA seminars and lectures, the establishment of facts constituting the crime must be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the determination of the selection and probative value of evidence based on the premise of fact-finding belongs to the discretion of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court held that it is difficult to deem the seminars lectures to be personal income of Defendant A as well as personal income.

Even if this is deemed to be a final and conclusive portion of the funds of the L church, it rejected the Defendants’ grounds of appeal on the premise that it is an individual income of Defendant A.

Examining the above legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment or embezzlement.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on embezzlement and intent of unlawful acquisition

A. The crime of embezzlement is established when a person who keeps another’s property embezzleds such property. The act of embezzlement as a constituent element of the crime of embezzlement refers to all the acts of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition, and the crime of embezzlement is established when there is an objective act that can be externally known by the intent of unlawful acquisition.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do3282, Feb. 24, 1998; 2004Do5904, Dec. 9, 2004). Here, the prosecutor must prove that an act of realizing an intent to acquire unlawful acquisition exists, and such proof is a judge.