1. The intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to a person who keeps another’s property without authority for his own or a third party’s interest in violation of the purpose of entrustment. As such, in a case where the custodian disposes of the property for the benefit of his or her own or a third party, not for his or her own interest, the intent of unlawful acquisition cannot be recognized unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do3009, Mar. 9, 1982, etc.). In a case where the defendant denies the intent of unlawful acquisition, the fact constituting such subjective element is bound to prove by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts relevant to the nature of the property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5899, Jun. 24, 2010). The fact that the act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition and the act of embezzlement is an act of embezzlement, and the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the existence of a reasonable doubt that there exists a judge’s value of evidence.

If there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's conviction, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest as the defendant's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do998, Sept. 9, 1994, etc.). The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) the defendant, who served as the president of the Damsan-si Residents' Representative Meeting (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case"; and (b) the above tenant representative meeting (hereinafter referred to as the "representative meeting of the occupants of this case"), has used KRW 10,00,000 out of the special repair reserve that the defendant kept for business purpose as the cost of structural diagnosis; and (c) the amount of KRW 9,00,000,000, which has been strictly determined as attorney fees, violates the rules for management of the advanced budget