A. Although the criminal case at issue of mistake of fact is an individual case of Defendant A, it cannot be recognized as an intentional act of embezzlement in light of the fact that it occurred in the course of handling the branch affairs of the Association E-Spo.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. It is unfair that each sentence sentenced by the court below which was unfair in sentencing (Defendant A: fine of 4,00,000 won, Defendant B: fine of 3,000,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the other hand, according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, Defendant A asserted the same purport at the court below's judgment (the court below acknowledged all the facts charged at the court below), and the court below found that Defendant A received public funds from a corporation to use them for the attorney-at-law's fee for a criminal case based on his own interest. According to the above, Defendant A recognized that the use of funds for personal purposes would go beyond the scope of use of corporate public funds. Even if Defendant A stated the use of funds on the letter of resolution for expenditure approved by himself as the representative of the corporation at the time, it is merely a withdrawal and use of public funds for personal purposes under the name of the borrowed funds, and it cannot be deemed an obstacle to the establishment of embezzlement (see Supreme Court Decisions 89Do2466, Feb. 23, 190; 2007Do6012, Oct. 11, 2007; 200 won, the court below rejected Defendant A's assertion on the above facts charged.

2) The legal principles and the lower court related to the determination of the party’s deliberation.