1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months;

3.Provided, That for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the course of operating the Victim F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “F”) and the Victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), the Defendant first paid expenses necessary for the operation of the Victim Co., Ltd. in advance, received repayment from the Victim Co., Ltd., or transferred the funds of the Victim Co., Ltd. to his own account, and used them for the operation of the Company. However, since the Defendant and the Victim Co., Ltd were suspended in the course of the settlement of the U.S. accounts, it cannot be said that there was an intention of unlawful acquisition of the same money as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In the crime of occupational embezzlement, the intent of acquisition of unjust enrichment in the crime of occupational embezzlement refers to the intent of disposing of another person's property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, such as his/her own property, and even if there is an intention to return, compensate, or preserve it later, it does not interfere with the recognition of the intention of acquisition of unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3431, Jun. 2, 2006). Since the intent of acquisition of unjust enrichment is established when the intention of acquisition is finally and conclusively expressed outside, the crime of occupational embezzlement is established when the crime of occupational embezzlement is established by embezzlement of another person's money kept in his/her duties with the intent of acquisition of unjust enrichment, even if the person who committed the crime of embezzlement asserts that he/she has separate monetary claims against the owner of the goods and expressed his/her intent of offset on the equal amount of embezzlement, it does not affect the already established crime of occupational embezzlement (see, e.g.