All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant of mistake of facts is the victim I’s I’s church (hereinafter “victim church”).

(2) Since an employee refused to return the said money on the day he/she remitted 4.5 million won to the victim church on which he/she had the money to be received from the victim church, it cannot be deemed that he/she was in the custodian of the said money. 2) In so doing, the fact that the Defendant expressed his/her intention to offset the money that he/she has erroneously forwarded to the victim church by his/her claim for the proceeds of unclaimed construction works against the victim church does not constitute

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter referred to as a fine of KRW 15 million) is too unreasonable. B. Considering that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated offense, the said sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant called the date when L, who is an employee of the victim church, remitted money to the victim church, and the defendant was willing to return money up to the closing time of the bank, but it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant did not return the money. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit. 2) In the crime of occupational embezzlement as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the defendant's intent of unlawful acquisition refers to the intention to dispose of another's property in violation of his/her occupational duties, such as his/her own property, and it cannot be said that there is no intention to return, compensate or preserve it later.

In addition, the crime of occupational embezzlement is established when the intent of the above illegal acquisition is finally indicated, so a person who committed the crime of embezzlement is a separate monetary claim against the owner of the goods.