However, the instant money is a profit accrued from the business for which E branch has obtained approval from the head of H branch, and the use of the money requires approval from H branch, and is subject to strict restrictions on its use.

The understanding of some of the persons concerned cannot use the instant money at will, and it cannot immediately be deemed as the understanding of the sports branch of the victim E.

Defendant did not administer accounts for the instant money, and Defendant used his own money for EF business places.

Even if the E does not obtain approval from the main office or branch office of the Gyeonggi-do or conclude a formal loan contract, it is not justified to use the instant money under the pretext of repayment.

Moreover, the Defendant used a considerable portion of the instant money for personal purposes not related to the operation of EF business offices.

Ultimately, the Defendant did not go through a proper procedure while using the instant money, which is revenues subject to strict procedures and restrictions on the use of the said money, and as long as most of the instant money is used for personal purposes at will, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant intended to obtain unlawful acquisition of the entire amount.

However, it is difficult to recognize the defendant's intention of unlawful acquisition.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who served as a management director of the F-office under the Gyeonggi-do branch office from August 20, 2013.

E may engage in profit-making business with the approval of the head of H agency after being established by the G-related Act, and any change in major approved matters, such as the purpose of the profit and the period of business.