The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was partially used by the Defendant, but the Defendant deposited money in the victimized company more than used.

Therefore, there is no intention or intention to acquire occupational embezzlement from the defendant.

2. The act of a representative director who has an individual claim against the judgment company appropriated for the repayment of his/her claim in money owned by the company for the payment of his/her claim to the company does not constitute an act of self-transaction in conflict of interest between the

Therefore, even if the representative director has repaid his/her claim against his/her company without going through the procedure of approval by the board of directors, it is valid as an act of performance of the company's obligation within the representative director's authority, and therefore, he/she cannot be held liable for the crime of embezzlement as he/she did not recognize an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2296, Feb. 23, 199). Examining the following circumstances revealed by the record in light of the above legal principles, even though there is a certain portion of accounting settlement, the defendant may be deemed to have lent his/her personal funds to the company from time to time to time as the representative director with interest of one shareholder of the victimized company, who is the representative director of the victimized company

The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not enough to recognize the defendant's intention of embezzlement or illegal acquisition, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

F is the Defendant’s personal business chain’s accounting around 2008, while the Defendant was taking over the damaged company around February 2010 and the actual shareholder and representative director came to take charge of H and the damaged company’s accounting work.

F Upon the direction of the defendant, the F managed the personal account, H account, and the account of the victimized company with a password, an OTP card, an authorized certificate without any separate account book.

The defendant needs to pay operating funds to the victimized company, which is the hostile company.