If the evidence adopted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant prepared one copy of the official document in the name of Chapter I, which is a false official document in the name of Chapter I, in collusion with the non-indicted who is an industrial site in the first place in Ycheon-gun, Gangwon-do, and that the defendant prepared one copy of the official document in consultation with the non-indicted who is the first place in office, and the court below's reasoning stated that "the facts acknowledged by the party members and the evidence relation to them are the same as that of all the defendant's criminal facts 1-A in collusion with the non-indicted who is the first place in all the last part of the facts, and therefore, they shall be accepted pursuant to Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's act in collusion with the non-indicted who is the first place in Ycheon-gun, in order to exercise the above official document in the name of Chapter I, and therefore, the judgment below did not fully contain any errors in the rules or misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The intent of unlawful acquisition in embezzlement refers to an intention to dispose of another's property as his own property without authority for his own or a third party's interest in violation of the purpose of entrustment. Thus, the crime of embezzlement is not established since it is not necessarily established since it is recorded and compared with the evidence of the first instance court admitted by the court below, which the defendant was in charge of the business of restoring damaged farmland due to damage caused by flood damage in 1984 as the head of the first industrial complex, and it can sufficiently be recognized that the defendant embezzled the money received from the National Treasury subsidy in his name while he deposited in the head of a bank in his name and has been in charge of the business of restoring damaged farmland. Thus, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of the charge of occupational embezzlement is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of embezzlement or in the application of Article 356 (1) and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act to the defendant who did not obtain the above money by himself.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)