The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, as a representative director arising from the operation of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”), has settled the payment several times, and thereafter, the victim Co., Ltd. attempted to sell 500,000 shares offered as security, and settle the provisional payment, but it failed to continue to settle the payment due to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures of the victim Co., Ltd., and in legal perspective, gift tax amounting to 316,502,460 won was merely borrowed from the victim Co., Ltd. and thus, the Defendant did not have

B. The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principle 1) The representative director of the company or a person who, corresponding thereto, has carried out de facto affairs concerning the custody and operation of the company's funds for any purpose other than provisional payment, withdraws and used large amount of company funds under the pretext of provisional payment, etc., not only the agreement on interest or maturity for payment, but also the resolution of the board of directors, etc. that does not go through legitimate procedures such as resolution of the board of directors does not exceed the generally acceptable scope, but also arbitrarily lends and disposes of company funds for private purposes by taking advantage of the status of the representative director, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do135 Decided April 27, 2006). The intention of unlawful acquisition in

The term "an intention to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party's interest refers to an intention to dispose of the same property as that of his/her own, and even if there is an intention to return, compensate, or preserve it later, it does not interfere with recognizing the intention to acquire unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do3045, Aug. 19, 2005; 2010Do17396, Mar. 24, 2011).