A. In determining the facts, the Defendant merely transferred money to an account under the name of the Defendant, because it is impossible to do so by means of a passbook in the name of the C Building Management Office, and paid 26.5 million won to I in relation to the base station rent, such payment shall not be deemed embezzlement.

B. In light of the fact that various expenses are paid from the Defendant’s account of unreasonable sentencing, the first instance court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of occupational embezzlement as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the term "an intention of unlawful acquisition" refers to an intention to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her occupational duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own or a third party's interest as if it were his/her own property or to dispose of it legally, and the use of funds for any purpose other than the limited purpose upon entrustment by others is not only derived from personal purpose, but also from personal purpose, and even if there is a face to the entrusting person, the act of use itself as its own realization of the intent of unlawful acquisition, thereby establishing embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do1779, May 10, 2002; 203Do4732, Aug. 20, 204). If a person entrusted with the affairs related to receipt of money from a third party on behalf of the delegating person, without any special reason, has an intention to receive money from the delegated person or the entrusted person for the purpose of embezzlement, it shall be deemed that he/she had an intent of embezzlement.