The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios and unreasonable sentencing) suspension of the execution of duties and the lawsuit for provisional disposition of appointment of acting representative (hereinafter “instant application lawsuit”) and the lawsuit for nullification of the resolution of the general meeting (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) are for the benefit of HB and the branch of the H (B) branch of the public clan (hereinafter “instant clan”). Thus, the payment of attorney’s fees at the expense of the said clan does not constitute occupational embezzlement, but the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the legal doctrine of occupational embezzlement.

In addition, the court below's punishment (700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In a case where a provisional disposition order is rendered by a person who asserts the non-existence of a director's qualification against a corporation's director by filing an application for provisional disposition suspending the performance of director's duties, it is clear that such provisional disposition would substantially interfere with the corporation's performance of duties because the director's performance of duties would be suspended, separate from whether the effect of such provisional disposition affects the corporation. Thus, a corporation needs to resist the above provisional disposition unless there is no possibility of dispute because the non-existence of director qualification is objectively clear and there is no possibility of dispute. Thus, even if the representative pays the litigation cost of the director who is the respondent of the pertinent provisional disposition case at the corporation's expense, it constitutes the payment of the corporation's expenses and

(See Supreme Court Decision 89Do1102 delivered on June 26, 1990). An attorney-at-law fee, in principle, payable at an organization’s expense, is limited to cases where an organization itself becomes a party to a lawsuit.

As a representative of the organization, the cost of attorney-at-law in civil and criminal cases, which is a party, cannot be disbursed at the expense of the organization, and exceptionally, disputes.