A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

2. We examine ex officio the Defendant’s argument of unfair sentencing before and after the submission period of the grounds for appeal and the contents of the counsel’s written opinion.

A. First of all, the determination on the assertion that the defendant did not intend to obtain unlawful acquisition is made, the defense counsel, as shown in the facts charged, keep the research expenses in the name of the defendant, or in the name of N (N) corporation (N) and P (O) corporation (hereinafter “O”).

It was true that this was used, but it was executed by changing the research funds for the timely execution of research funds for efficient research, and since the defendant did not use the research funds for individuals or the above companies, and used all the research funds received for the purpose of research, it is argued that the defendant did not intend to obtain unlawful acquisition.

The intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement refers to the intention of disposal of another person's property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, such as in fact or by law. In cases where a person in a position to execute a fund diverts funds not for his/her own interest but for his/her own interest, and where the funds are diverted to cover the shortage of expenses, it cannot be readily concluded that he/she had the intent of unlawful acquisition on the sole basis of the fact that the disbursement would have been useful to cover the interval when it would have been permitted if it would have been originally determined. However, the use of the funds itself has an unlawful purpose.

In the event that the purpose of funds is strictly limited, the Supreme Court has recognized the intent of illegal acquisition on September 2008.