The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-misunderstanding or legal principles, all criminal cases where a defendant paid a fine with the funds of the victim C Co., Ltd. or paid attorney fees were incurred when the defendant performed legitimate duties as a representative director of the above company, and the use of the above funds was approved after the board of directors and the general meeting of shareholders. Thus, the above use of the funds by the defendant does not constitute occupational embezzlement.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As a matter of principle, an attorney fee, which can be paid at the expense of an organization for determination of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, is limited to cases where the organization itself becomes a party to a lawsuit, so the attorney fee for a civil and criminal case in which a representative of an organization becomes a party to a lawsuit cannot be paid at the expense of an organization. An exceptional case where a dispute arises in relation to an act performed by an individual who is in the status of a representative for legal reasons, or because the individual becomes a party to a lawsuit or other legal procedure, or is in the status of a representative, for legal reasons, or acts performed lawfully for the sake of an organization, the pertinent legal dispute may pay the attorney fee at the expense of an organization only when there is a special need to conduct a lawsuit or respond to a

In addition, if the act of paying attorney fees at one organization's expense constitutes embezzlement, approval of the board of directors has been obtained.

Even if it is illegal to pay attorney fees for personal criminal cases unrelated to the business performance of the organization, the above approval is an inherent limit.