A. The Defendant, according to the direction of B, the temporary president of the school juristic person D (hereinafter “juristic person”) and the president of F University E and the principal of the school affairs division, did not commit the crime of embezzlement in collusion with B on the part of the Defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court (1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the defendant was in charge of accounting management as the secretary general of the corporation, ② the approval on the disbursement resolution was made by the defendant, who is the director of the board of directors, H, K, and the defendant, who is the director of the office division, through the defendant, who is the director of the office division. ② the defendant was discussed with B and E in response to the criminal case against the violation of the High Education Act, ② the defendant was well aware that the attorney appointment expenses in this case were the attorney appointment expenses in relation to any criminal case, ③ the defendant was well aware of whether the attorney appointment expenses in this case are the attorney appointment expenses in question, ③ the defendant ordered H to prepare and approve a written resolution on the attorney appointment expenses in several times, ④ according to the defendant's direction, H prepared the relevant disbursement resolution on the same day after pre-execution of the expenses for each E and G attorney appointment expenses in advance, and made the approval on the same day in one month and one time.

In full view of B’s ex post facto written approval of each of the above disbursement resolutions, it is recognized that the Defendant conspired with B to pay the cost of appointing each of the attorneys-at-law in E and G out of the corporation’s accounting funds as stated in the judgment of the court below, and that the Defendant is not aware of the nature of the attorney-at-law’s expense.