[2] The case holding that in a case where a person in charge of accounting of a private school disbursed tuition funds in excess of the actual amount, and then collected the excess amount under the name of school development fund or rebates and used it as employees' benefits and corporate office operating expenses, etc., the case holding that the intent of unlawful acquisition of occupational embezzlement

[3] The case denying the intent of unlawful acquisition of occupational embezzlement in case where the person in charge of accounting of a private school disbursed funds from the private school more than actual accounts, and then disbursed funds raised by returning such excess funds under the name of the school development fund or rebates as expenses for the promotion of college students, such as expenses for entrance and publicity belonging to the school expenses and the expenses for the promotion of college students

[2] In a case where a person in charge of accounting of a private school disbursed school expenses in excess of the actual amount, and then received the excess amount from the school development fund or rebates under the name of the school development fund or rebates, and used it as employees' benefits and corporate office operating expenses, the case holding that the intent of unlawful acquisition of occupational embezzlement

[3] The case denying the intention of unlawful acquisition of occupational embezzlement in case where the person in charge of accounting of a private school disbursed funds from the private school in excess of the actual amount of the school expenses, and then disbursed funds raised by returning such excess funds under the name of the school development fund or rebates as expenses for the promotion of school expenses and the construction of a gymnasium to attract students from the university

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, and imprisonment for one year and six months, respectively.

The number of days of detention before the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be 262 days per defendant 1, and 261 days shall be included in the above punishment against defendant 2.

A. Defendants

(1) Fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles

(A) Defendant 1

Of the money deposited in the borrowed account in the name of Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, and 4, the money received as the school development fund was created to use for entrance and publicity expenses, and was used for any other purpose, and thus, it does not constitute embezzlement even if it was used for any other purpose. Of the money deposited from the above borrowed account, the prosecutor proven the place of use does not constitute embezzlement. Of the money deposited in the above borrowed account, the amount of KRW 300 million (attached Table 5-3), the money deposited in the employee of the school foundation and the employee of the school foundation and the private teaching institute, and the money deposited in the Nonindicted 7 account of Nonindicted 6 of the auditor of the principal institute, the lower court acknowledged that Defendant 1 embezzled all the money deposited in the list of crimes 2 through 5 (including the money of KRW 1 in the list of crimes).

(B) In the case of Defendant 2

Non-Indicted 8 and Defendant 2’s money deposited into the borrowed name account is entirely paid as the school development fund, and it is not included in school expenses, and thus, even if used for other purposes, embezzlement is not established. Of the money deposited from the above borrowed name account, the prosecutor’s proving the place of use is only the money deposited into Non-Indicted 5’s account (crime list 6), but the lower court acknowledged that Defendant 2 embezzled all the money (including Non-Indicted 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and Defendant 2’s money in the name of Non-Indicted 1, 4, 8, and Defendant 2’s account in total (hereinafter in this case, including Non-Indicted 1, 2, 3, 8, and Defendant 2’s money deposited in the instant borrowed name account).

(2) The point of unfair sentencing

In light of the fact that all of the funds of this case were the money jointly managed by the school (Srabol and racing) accounting and employees, and that the Defendants did not individually take it out. The crime of this case leads to a decrease in the amount of tuition income and serious compromise in school finance in the private sector where the financial status is poor, and the risk of bankruptcy is faced by the school finance, as well as the fact that the recruitment of students leads to an urgent demand in the situation where the recruitment of students is urgent in connection with their livelihood in the school and teachers and staff, and that the public relations expenses for the entry and the public relations expenses set out in the regular school finance were to be appropriated for the expenses for the public relations of the entrance and the recruitment of students in the form of money that has been raised in a somewhat change of the mother and child, it is unfair to take into account the motive as it was found in the process of appropriating the funds to be appropriated for the expenses for the public relations expenses of the entrance and donation, and that the defendants divided the depth of the error.

(b) An inspection;

In light of the fact that the Defendants were indiscreetly created and executed school expenses of universities up to 12 billion won through a borrowed account by a single judgment, and that the Defendants destroyed the evidence in order to conceal the place of use of the non-financial resources, and that such acts of the Defendants resulted in a major hindrance to the autonomy, public nature, and soundness of private schools, the punishment imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Summary of the charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

Defendant 1 is a person engaged in the management of property, accounting, personnel affairs, etc. of the above university from around 1994 while serving as the manager of the general affairs of the college from around 1994, and Defendant 2 works as the manager of the general affairs of the racing college, the director of the office of administration, and the secretary general of the bureau and the secretary general of the above university from around 198, and has been in charge of the affairs of personnel affairs, accounting, accounting, accounting, etc. of the above university. The school juristic person accounts are divided into school accounts and corporate accounts, and the income, in particular, belonging to school expenses accounts, is strictly limited, such as that it is impossible to transfer or lend to other accounts. In the case of Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, the purpose of use of the school expenses accounting

A. Defendant 1:

The amount indicated in the above tax invoice is paid to the above company on January 4, 200 to March 22, 2004 by requesting the above company to return the difference equivalent to the discount amount in the transaction honorariums, etc., once it is paid to the above company, the amount in the above tax invoice, which is a non-indicted 9, which is a non-indicted 9, the representative director of the information system, which is the Rabbbol University Trading Corporation, the Mabol University Trading Corporation, which is the Mabolbol University Trading Corporation, the Mabol University Trading Corporation, the representative director of Non-indicted 9, which is the Mabol University Trading Corporation, from January 4, 200 to March 6, 204, and was returned to the national bank racing account in the name of non-indicted 1 through 4, which is the relatives of the above university.

(1) In collusion with Non-Indicted 10, the Secretary General of the Korea Educational Institute, to which the above university belongs,

Of May 25, 2001, KRW 3,000,000 was deposited into the account of Nonindicted 5, an employee of the said corporation, and was arbitrarily used for the monthly salary of the said corporation and the office expenses of the said corporation. From that time, from November 11, 2004, the total of KRW 238,002,00,000 was used for 44 times in total as shown in attached Table 1, as shown in attached Table 1;

(2) On April 25, 200, KRW 2,600,00, out of which was deposited into the account of Nonindicted 7’s wife Nonindicted 6’s auditor, and used at will as the above Nonindicted 6’s allowance. From January 6, 200 to April 23, 2004, including KRW 8,885,87,361 (the remainder after deducting KRW 238,002,00,000, which was deposited from Nonindicted 5’s account as indicated in the preceding paragraph from KRW 9,123,89,361) paid the above corporate allowance, etc. or used at will for the personal purpose of the auditor’s expense, etc., and embezzlement KRW 9,238,02,00,00,000 in total, KRW 310,00 for 310 times in total, such as the attached list 2 through 5.

B. Defendant 2:

From December 30, 199 to October 27, 2004, the amount indicated in the above tax invoice was paid to the above company by requesting the above company to return the difference equivalent to the discount amount under the transaction recompense, etc. even though it can be traded at a discounted amount than the price of the goods on the tax invoice to the above company, which is the above company transaction in the above university, including the non-indicted 11, the representative director of the Daesung Enterprise's company, the representative director of the Daesung-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government. The amount indicated in the above tax invoice was paid to the above company, and the part of the amount was returned to the above company under the name of the transaction honorarium, and then the national bank account in the name of the defendant 2,989, 238, 308 won was to be formed and executed in the above university's non-accounting account by means of returning the part of the amount to the above company's total funds to the above company's general account and the employees.

(1) In collusion with the above non-indicted 10:

Of May 25, 2001, 3,000,000 won was deposited into the above non-indicted 5's account and was used arbitrarily as monthly salary and office expenses of the employees of the above corporation, from that time to August 25, 2005, the total of KRW 328,746,030,000, which was total of 62 times as shown in the annexed crime list 6, as shown in the annexed crime list 6, shall be used for the salary and office expenses of the above corporation;

(2) On November 22, 2001, KRW 10,200,00, out of which the above university was affiliated with Nonindicted 6 of the school foundation principal of the school foundation, to which the above university was affiliated, was paid as a repayment of borrowed money and used arbitrarily. From January 4, 200 to October 27, 2004, the above university’s total amount of KRW 2,660,492,278 (the remainder after deducting KRW 328,746,030,00 which was deposited from Nonindicted 5’s account as stated in the preceding paragraph from KRW 2,989,238,300 (the remainder after deducting KRW 2,989,238,030 which was paid as a repayment of borrowed money from the auditor of the school foundation principal of the school foundation, etc.) embezzled KRW 2,298,238,388,308, by paying at the expense of the position manager, etc. or using it for an individual purpose.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Whether the funds of this case raised by the Defendants belong to the accounts of school expenses

According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, the defendants entered into a contract on construction, purchase, services, etc. of the Seocho-gu university and the racing university at a price higher than the actual value-added tax, and then returned the remaining portion of the difference in the difference in the form of rebates (in the case of the Seocho-gu university, it is the national bank racing account in the name of Non-Indicted 1 through 4, which is the relative of the employees of the Seocho-gu university, and in the case of the race University, it is the account managed by Defendant 2, which was returned to the national bank account in the name of Non-Indicted 8, which is the relative of Non-Indicted 12, and the national bank in the name of the above defendant, and the National Bank in the name of the above defendant in the name of the above defendant, and if the amount was returned to the above excessive amount, it shall not be deemed that the amount paid by the defendants from the school development fund belongs to the school expenses accounts [Article 13(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act or the accounts of another school foundation.]

Defendant 1 asserts that, in addition to the portion paid in the name account of the school development fund, the money deposited in the name account he managed is mixed with (i) the government subsidy or school expense accounting funds have been withdrawn, and (ii) the unused amount has been returned from the name account to the actual payment, or the part has been recovered after lending it to the school expense account, and (iii) the above money is not equal to the school expense accounting funds. Since the above defendant was incorporated in the budget and kept in the name account without making a clear statement of accounts, it is impossible for the prosecutor to prove the absence of the contract. Ultimately, the above defendant is not liable for the above money in this case, as long as it is stated in the above defendant's budget and kept it in the name account without preparing a clear statement of accounts, it is impossible for the prosecutor to prove the absence of the contract. Ultimately, the prosecutor's supporting act should be prepared at least to the extent that it is possible to present the evidence that the above defendant is liable for the existence of such a fact.

In addition, Defendant 2 asserted that he received money from an enterprise as a school development fund regardless of the transaction. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be recognized that the portion returned as the school development fund was intended to be returned from the time when it was first disbursed as the school development fund or the rebates in the name of the school development fund through repeated transaction process with these enterprises, and thus, the above Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Fact-finding or misapprehension of legal principle as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

(1) In the crime of occupational embezzlement, the expression "an intention of unlawful acquisition" refers to an intention to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own or a third party's interest, such as in fact or in law, and the fact that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing an intent to acquire unlawful acquisition requires a prosecutor to prove that there is a crime of embezzlement. Thus, the proof must be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not more reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest. If the defendant does not properly explain his/her whereabouts or place of use even if there is no money in his/her custody, it may be presumed that the defendant voluntarily consumed and embezzled it, but if it is difficult to recognize the existence of the defendant's intention to obtain unlawful acquisition, and if there is no explanation on the whereabouts or place of use, there is no other evidence supporting that the defendant deposited money entrusted to him/her for another purpose than 994.

In addition, in a private school, where the accounts for school expenses have been disbursed for items that can be disbursed as funds belonging to the original accounts for school expenses, such as facilities and equipment expenses needed directly for school education, it is difficult to view that the offender intended to arbitrarily embezzled such accounts for school expenses. If the actor did not properly comply with the relevant provisions of the Private School Act in the course of such spending, criminal sanctions, etc. under the Private School Act can only be imposed (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4085, Apr. 28, 2006).

(2) However, the following facts are acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and one copy of the investigation records (such as documents, etc. of Ganju University Accounting), two separate books (documents, etc.) and one-eight-eight (155) of reference materials submitted by the counsel of the court below as of November 7, 2006, one-seven (1370-1376) of reference materials as of November 21, 2006, submitted by the counsel of the court below as of March 27, 2007, and three-1-7, 4-1-6, 5-1-3, and 5-1-3, and each of the reference materials as of May 10, 2007 and the statement of the Defendants at the court below at the court below as follows: < Amended by Act No. 8174, Nov. 21, 2006; Act No. 8513, Mar. 27, 2007>

(A) The Seocho-si University and the Bicycle-si University are the private schools under the jurisdiction of the school juristic person, and the founders of the above universities and the school juristic persons are Nonindicted 13, who are the actual managers.

(B) Defendant 1 is the sixth degree of non-indicted 14's wife non-indicted 13. From around February 1994 to February 2005, the president of the above university has been engaged in the management of the property, accounting, and personnel affairs of the above university as the head of the accounting team from around 200. The dean of the above university is non-indicted 15, and he is the head of the administrative support division (non-indicted 2), the head of the general affairs division, and the head of the department in charge. Defendant 2 had been in charge of the accounting, accounting, accounting, etc. of the above university from around 1988 to around February 16, 200, from around March 13, 2005 to August 206.

(C) In the 1990s, due to the fact that a university establishment permit that does not comply with the adjustment of the supply and demand of students has been granted, the number of university students is less than the number of university students enrolled in the country after graduating from high school than the number of university students, and the university has made efforts to attract new students. In addition, the universities have made efforts to establish various measures to attract new students and encourage faculty members to actively participate in public relations (Investigation Records 4743-4762). In order to raise a huge amount of expenses required therefor, the Defendants have made efforts to use multiple borrowed accounts with the consent of the superior such as the dean, etc.

(d) In the case of Western University, from 200 to 2004, the amount paid for the invitation of new students, excluding scholarships and studio support expenses, advertising fee for entrance, promotional publishing equipment, promotional event expenses for entrance, promotional event expenses for entrance and exit, support expenses for entrance and exit, etc., total amount of KRW 8,959,643,668. Of these, the amount paid out of 2,804,79,683 and the amount paid out of 2,600, KRW 750, KRW 675, KRW 785, KRW 6785, KRW 786, KRW 785, KRW 675, KRW 786, KRW 785, KRW 786, KRW 785, KRW 675, KRW 785, KRW 785, KRW 786,5786, KRW 786,785,075, KRW 2786,5786,75786.

(E) In light of the current status of the final registration of junior colleges in Daegu-Gyeongbuk-do area due to the spending of a large amount of money as the promotional expenses for entrance, the Western-do university fell under five of the 22 junior colleges, on average of 74.8% in 2003 to 2005, and on average of 93.7% in 2006 (the trial record 483, May 10, 2007 reference materials2).

(F) As above, the amount disbursed as the promotional expenses for entering a university is classified into the entry management expenses (430), the entrance management expenses (430), the entrance inspection expenses (431), and the entrance expenses (432), and the detailed statement on the basis of the calculation.

(G) On the other hand, the Seobol University concluded a contract for construction work with the Sungsung Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Trified Industries”) around December 15, 200 on the construction cost of KRW 6,325,00,00 (predicting several times). The Seobol Industries commenced construction work on January 2001 and completed the completion of construction at around 202. The total construction cost of the above interior sports center construction cost of KRW 8,742,440,00 (design cost of KRW 283,80,00,000 + construction supervision cost of KRW 18,320,00 + construction cost of KRW 20,000 + construction cost of KRW 18,320,00 + construction cost of KRW 200,000 + construction cost of KRW 300,50,500 + construction cost of KRW 360,705,506,705,000.

(H) From 200 to 2004, the Defendants spent 6.1 billion won and 2.3 billion won each for five years from 2000 to 2004 as the promotional expenses for the entry of the Western University and the Racing University. The Defendants spent the amount of KRW 1.4 billion with the interior gymnasium construction expenses of the Seobol University from 2001 to 2002. However, most of the instant borrowed accounts underwent the process of deposit in cash from each of the instant borrowed accounts. However, it is practically impossible to track the Defendants’ destruction of all documentary evidence of revenues and expenditures from 200 to 2004 by the date of withdrawal of the borrowed account or by the total amount used from each of the borrowed accounts.

(3) Determination as to the existence of an intent to obtain unlawful acquisition

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence adopted by the court below and the trial court, the purpose and procedure of raising funds of this case, the form and details of the management of funds of the non-financial institution, and the amount of expenses and the timing of disbursement of each of the expenses incurred in the establishment of a training hall in the Seocho-gu University and the Seocho-gu University as well as the indoor gymnasium construction expenses of the Seocho-gu University, and the timing of disbursement and the evidence examined in the court below and the trial, it is examined as follows.

(A) As to the list 1 and 6 of crime sight

① The act of using funds from others for purposes other than the limited purpose is established as the act of using funds itself, even if they are exempted from personal purpose, and thereby realizes the intent of unlawful acquisition. Since the accounts of school juristic persons under Article 29 of the Private School Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are divided into school accounts and corporate accounts, and in particular the revenues belonging to school expenses accounts are strictly limited, such as transfer or lending to other accounts, if the school expenses accounts are used for other purposes, the crime of embezzlement is established, and even if the school expenses accounts of certain schools are used for other school expenses accounts of other schools belonging to the same school juristic person, there is an intention of unlawful acquisition (Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1779 Decided May 10, 2002, Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4570 Decided December 24, 2004, etc.). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18820, Sep. 3, 2005>

② In light of the above legal principles, each of the deposits and the amount used in Nonindicted 5’s account from the instant non-fund account to the account of Nonindicted 5, the employee of the said school foundation, as well as the office operating expenses of the said foundation, are recognized as the intent of unlawful acquisition, and thus, the crime of occupational embezzlement is established.

However, the amount of embezzlement No. 29 No. 1 of the crime day table 1 is limited to KRW 5,500,000, without any evidence that the amount is KRW 6,500,000 (the investigation record 1392), and the date and time No. 43 is recognized as not on May 27, 2004 but on May 25, 2004 (the investigation record 1397), there is no evidence to prove that the amount stated in No. 1, 2, and 45 in No. 6 of the crime day list 6 was deposited in the name of the next account managed by Defendant 2 (the portion of the portion deposited from the instant non-funds account to Nonindicted 5, the client’s “Nonindicted 17,” and the portion of the portion in which “Nonindicted 12,” was deposited from the name of the next university to the name of the next university, not from May 27, 2004, but from May 13, 2014).

(B) On the number 3, 67, 75, 90, 94, 97, 102, 105, 109, 113, and 119, and the number 268, 284 of the list of crimes in 3, 67, 75, 90, 94, 97, 102, 105, 109, 113, and 119;

The withdrawal amount set forth in No. 16, 17, and 18 No. 3 of the list of crimes No. 16, 17, and 18 is recognized as Defendant 1’s account in the name of Nonindicted Party 6’s wife, Nonindicted Party 6, and used as Nonindicted Party 6’s salary. Of the withdrawal amount set out in No. 5 of the list of crimes No. 3, KRW 300 million was withdrawn from the name of Nonindicted Party 4 and deposited into the school expense of the said university, and was used as the operation expenses of the said university. The amount set out in No. 20 of the list No. 2 of the above list No. 3 was set out in the name of Nonindicted Party 6’s account in the name of Nonindicted Party 6’s wife, and the amount set out in the list No. 2 of the list of crimes set forth in No. 3 of the list of crimes set forth in the list No. 2, the number of Nonindicted Party 6’s account less the amount set out in the list No. 1 to Defendant 2. 6.

(C) Of the list of crimes, 144, 147, 158, 163, 164, 175, 179, 188, 190, 194, 198, 209, 216, 225, 232, 241, 244, 252, 257, 272, 276, 277, 288, 319

Each of the above withdrawal amounts is recognized as being fully deposited in the school expense passbook (National Bank No. 604-25-014-321) of the racing university under the name of “legal charges” after Defendant 2 withdraws the funds of the racing university managed by Nonindicted 8 from the borrowed name account in the form of “the contribution of its founder,” and on the other hand, deposited in the school expense passbook (National Bank No. 604-25-01-321 of March 27, 2007) (i.e., reference materials No. 1-2 and 2 of March 27, 2007). As it is difficult to view that Defendant 2 used the funds of the school expense account of the racing university for another purpose, the above Defendant

(D) As to the list 2, Nos. 1 through 15, 19 through 71 of the list of crimes, list 4 of crime sights, list 5 of the list of crimes, other than those found guilty under the above sub-paragraph (b) of the above sub-paragraph (c) of the list of crimes, remaining parts excluding the sub-paragraph (c) and Nos. 268, 284 of the list of crimes, and the remaining parts 8 and 9 of the list of crimes

① Whether each of the above disbursements constitutes school expenses disbursement

According to Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, the expenditure of the accounts for school expenses is defined as “expenses for personnel and goods necessary for school operation (Article 13(2)1),” “expenses for facilities and equipment directly required for school education (Article 2),” “expenses for school teachers’ research, student’ scholarships, education guidance and physical training (Article 3),” and “other expenses directly required for school education (Article 5).” According to Article 21 of the Financial Accounting Rules for Private School Institutions, the expenditure budget of the accounts for school expenses shall not be used for any other purpose, and shall not be transferred to another account in the accounts for school expenses (Article 2(2)), “Where the budget is exceeded or exceeded between paragraphs or items of the same budget notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2).”

In light of the above provisions and the facts stated in 3-B(2)(c), (d), (f), and (g) above, the expenses for attracting new students, such as the expenses for entering and promoting a university and a racing university, claimed by the Defendants out of the instant non-funds, may be deemed to fall under Article 13-2(2)3 or 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act. Moreover, the expenses for indoor gymnasium in the Seocho-gu university that Defendant 1 spent constitute expenses for facilities directly necessary for school education (Article 13-2(2)2 of the Private School Act). Accordingly, the expenses for indoor gymnasium in the instant non-funds for the purpose of using a considerable portion of the instant non-funds are expenses incurred from the accounts of private schools.

② Examining the Defendants’ status and role in each of the above universities, the process and purpose of raising the funds of this case, the management form and use of the funds of this case, etc. in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the Defendants asserted that the Defendants were to use the funds of this case independently until the end, it is reasonable to deem that the portion of the funds of this case out of the funds of this case was still under the management of the Seochobol University and the Racing University (in fact, the pertinent portion of the funds of this case is indicated to be under the management of each of the above universities). Unlike the facts, there is no evidence to support that the aforementioned portion of the funds of this case was not under the management of each of the above universities, but is not under the management of each of the above universities for the private use of each of the above universities, nor is there any evidence to support that the Defendants used the funds for the purpose of raising the funds of this case or with the intent of unlawful acquisition. The Defendants cannot be readily concluded to have an intent to acquire unlawful profits in the crime of embezzlement solely on the basis that they participated in the fund of abnormal procedures and expenditure.

Of course, in light of the facts acknowledged in Article 3- 3-b (h) of the above, it is sufficient to raise doubt as to whether the defendants did not take such measures to use the funds created and managed by the defendants for their personal use for the defendants or their superior' personal use. However, as seen earlier, the defendants' defense as to the place of using the funds deposited from the non-financial account is revealed as facts or as to the Marin in support of the possibility of fact, and the final place of using the withdrawn money is not clearly identified, alone, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendants used the funds of this case for their personal use, and it cannot be recognized even after examining all other evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the remaining portion of each of the above expenses except for the part found guilty in the above sub-paragraph (b) of the crime sight table 2, Nos. 3 through 15, Nos. 19 through 71 of the crime sight table 4, crime sight table 5, and crime sight table 5, shall be deemed to have been disbursed on behalf of the Western University, such as the crime sight table 7, and the part excluding the above sub-paragraph (c) and Nos. 268, 284 among the crime sight table 7, and the part 8, and Nos. 9 of the crime sight table 8 and 9 cannot be deemed to have been disbursed on behalf of the racing University, unless there are special circumstances to deem that Defendant 2 did not have been disbursed on behalf of the racing University, such part of the charges against the Defendants cannot be deemed to have been disbursed on a personal basis, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of embezzlement or by misapprehending the intent of embezzlement.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendants' appeal on the part of the above 3-B(3)-B-3(c) and (d) among the facts charged of this case is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants and the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again ruled as follows through pleading.

“1. Defendant 1:

A. The accounts of school juristic persons are divided into the accounts of school juristic persons and the accounts of the school juristic persons, and in particular, the revenues belonging to the accounts of school expenses are strictly limited to those of the school accounting, such as transfer to other accounts or lending. In the case of Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, since the purpose of the accounts of school expenses is limited to the accounts of school expenses, the accounts of school expenses cannot be compiled and used for any other purpose, notwithstanding the fact that the accounts of school expenses cannot be collected and used for any other purpose. However, from January 4, 200 to March 22, 2004, the accounts of the accounts of the school juristic persons shall be returned to the accounts of the university, such as Usung households, the Maddong, the representative director of the information system, Nonindicted 9, which is the transaction company of the Seodaemun-gu, Seoboldo-dong, Seobol University-dong, the transaction company of the university, the Mando-dong, the information and communications, the information and communications, the Makkk, etc.

(1) In collusion with Non-Indicted 10, the Secretary General of the Korea Educational Institute, to which the above university belongs,

Of May 25, 2001, the sum of KRW 3,000,000, out of which was deposited into the account of Nonindicted 5, who is an employee of the said corporation, was used arbitrarily for the monthly salary of the said corporation and the office expenses of the said corporation, and from that time, until November 11, 2004, the sum of KRW 237,002,00,000, out of the above university tuitions for 44 times in total, as shown in attached Table 10, as shown in attached Table 10; and

(2) On April 25, 200, KRW 2,600,000, out of which was deposited into the account in the name of Nonindicted 7’s wife Nonindicted 6’s auditor, and used at will as the above Nonindicted 6’s allowance. From April 25, 200 to March 25, 2004, the above university faculty’s expenses and subsidies totaling KRW 351,23,450, in total, 14 times as shown in the annexed crime list 11,12, as shown in the annexed crime list 11, 200 to March 25, 204; and

Embezzlement 588,235,450 won in total of the teaching expenses of Labol University and the National Treasury subsidies;

2. Defendant 2:

A. The accounts of school juristic persons are divided into the accounts of school juristic persons and the accounts of the school juristic persons, and in particular, the revenues belonging to the accounts of school expenses are strictly limited to those of the school accounting, such as transfer to other accounts or lending. In the case of Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, since the purpose of the accounts of school expenses is limited to the accounts of school expenses, the accounts of school expenses cannot be compiled and used for any other purpose, notwithstanding the fact that the accounts of school expenses cannot be collected and used for any other purpose. However, from December 30, 199 to October 27, 2004, the Korean land system Daegu-based tax invoice, Gad Bank (hereinafter referred to as the representative director of the company of the school) of the above university transaction company, including 11, who is the representative director of the Seongdong-dong in Mapo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the amount of the tax invoice less than the actual transaction price, but the amount of the unrepared funds should be paid to the National Bank's account under the name of Korea, and the National Bank.

(1) In collusion with the above non-indicted 10:

Of July 25, 2001, KRW 4,00,000 was deposited into the above non-indicted 5’s account and used arbitrarily as monthly salary and office expenses of the above school juristic person, from that time to August 25, 2005, the total of KRW 319,746,030,000, which was total of 59 times as shown in attached Table 13, as shown in attached Table 13, shall be used for the above school juristic person’s salary and office expenses;

(2) On November 22, 2001, as indicated in the annexed Table 14, 12,000,000 among them were paid to Nonindicted 6 of the Educational Foundation, to which the above university belongs, as the repayment of loan, and used at will the total of KRW 17,00,000,000 for the above university faculty members on two occasions;

Embezzlement 336,746,030 won in total of the teaching expenses of racing universities

A. Defendant 1

(1) The occupation of occupational embezzlement: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”), Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act [Article 30 of the Criminal Act is limited to Article 1-A(1) of the Criminal Act];

(2) Occupation of an unauthorized building: Articles 78(1) and 8(1)1 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 7696 of Nov. 8, 2005) (elections with imprisonment)

(3) The point of destroying records: Article 29 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Management of Archives of Public Institutions (Law No. 5709, Jan. 29, 199; hereinafter the same shall apply) (Appointment of imprisonment)

B. Defendant 2

(a) The point of occupational embezzlement: Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act, inclusive, [Article 30 of the Criminal Act shall be limited to Article 2-A(1) of the Criminal Act] (Preparation of Imprisonment) (Article 30 of the Criminal Act shall be limited to imprisonment);

(2) The point of destroying records: Article 29 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Management of Archives of Public Institutions.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act [the punishment against Defendant 1 shall be imposed on the offense of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of which Punishment is the most severe, the punishment against Defendant 2 shall be aggravated, and the punishment against Defendant 2 shall be imposed on the offense of occupational embezzlement with heavier punishment];

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

However, the defendants' act of causing the crimes of this case can be deemed as having caused the structural problems in the private school operation itself, such as inducing new students, even if a letter is mobilized at a private school where the existence is in danger due to the decrease of high school graduates. The crime of this case does not seem to have been committed by the defendants. The defendants' act of this case is in depth divided into primary offenders, and the defendants' age, character and behavior, family environment, the use of embezzlement money which is found guilty, circumstances after the crime, etc. are determined as ordered by the order against the defendants.

Therefore, the defendant 1 should be acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as seen above, the crime of violation of Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and the crime of occupational embezzlement in relation to the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the defendant 2

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment] List 1 to 14.: Omitted.]

Judges Lee Kang-won (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)