An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

In light of the fact that the defendant has not embezzled the money received as school expenses from the victim, and that the confession made in the first instance court was made false confession to be exempted from detention, and that C has not yet received the dormitory expenses from the D parents, and that the defendant would have been able to first pay the dormitory expenses with the remaining money after paying the school expenses in installments. In light of the fact that D returned to Korea and paid the full amount of the school expenses, the court below convicted the defendant, even though it cannot be recognized as the defendant's intention of unlawful acquisition, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the fact that D has affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

The money entrusted with the establishment and purpose of the legal principles and purpose of the judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is reserved to the truster until the money is used for the prescribed purpose and purpose, and if the trustee arbitrarily consumes the money, the crime of embezzlement shall be constituted.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 94Do462 delivered on September 9, 1994, 2002Do2939 delivered on October 11, 2002, etc.). In embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition refers to an intention to dispose of another person’s property, such as his/her own property, in violation of his/her duty to promote his/her own or a third party’s interest, and thus, to return, reimburse, and preserve it later.

Even if there is no difficulty in recognizing the intent of illegal acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5167, Nov. 10, 2006). As such, it is not necessary to deduct the amount of ex post facto reimbursement or preservation from the amount of embezzlement.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant's intent to obtain unlawful acquisition.