B, C’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are all dismissed.

Defendant B, C, and prosecutor’s appeal against the guilty portion (the point of occupational embezzlement around July 5, 2007 against Defendant B and C) by Defendant B, C, and C received KRW 30 million from their parents as the school development fund of H foreign language high schools, and paid it as the design service cost for the expansion of the corridor of the I building. However, Defendant B, C, and C used the school development fund of H foreign language high schools for the convenience and safety of students of H foreign language high schools as the facilities jointly used by H foreign language high schools, and Defendant B, C, and C used the school development fund of H foreign language high schools for the construction work cost for the legitimate expansion of the corridor, it is difficult to deem that Defendant B and C had an intent to commit embezzlement or an unlawful acquisition.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to occupational embezzlement.

The sentencing of the court below (the fine of three million won for the defendant B, the fine of two million won for the defendant C) is too unreasonable.

The sentencing of the court below by the prosecutor is too uncomfortable.

Considering the fact that the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor on the part of innocence (the defendant's occupational embezzlement from March 25, 2009 to July 7, 2009) includes part of the funds that he/she contributed to the money that he/she contributed as a school development fund, and that the parent's representative did not obtain the consent of the entire parent, the amount of KRW 120 million that he/she contributed is the school development fund of H foreign language high schools. In light of the legislative intent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and relevant statutes, the amount that the parent contributed cannot be deemed as a donation to the school foundation even if the donor consented to the donation.

Nevertheless, on a different premise, Defendant C received the above KRW 120 million as a donation to a school foundation HHA, and sentenced Defendant C not guilty of this part of the facts charged.