The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, as the representative director of the company, did not repay the Defendant’s personal debt to E with the borrowed money of the company, but paid part of the Defendant’s debt to E.

Even if the Defendant repaid his personal debt to E,

Even if the defendant, who already has a claim of KRW 500 million against the company, can appropriate it for the repayment of his/her claim within the representative director's authority, it constitutes a legitimate performance act.

Therefore, there is no intention to acquire illegal profits for the defendant.

B. Sentencing

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court determined as to whether to pay the Defendant’s debt to E, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence, i., ① at the time of the Defendant’s or the damaged company’s appearance of KRW 200 million, E did not have been solicited to make an investment from K, etc. or negotiated investment terms and conditions, etc. at the time of the damage company’s representative director, and 200 million, upon the Defendant’s investment of KRW 200 million from the Defendant, and decided that E would give KRW 200 million as designated by the Defendant. ② The loan certificate that E received from the Defendant is “the damaged company’s payment to Defendant and I, KRW 300 million,000,000,000,000 to be paid to the Defendant and I

Although the purport of “E” is stated to the effect that, as the Defendant was designated by the Defendant, there was a request for the preparation of a letter, etc. to the Defendant after having drawn up KRW 200 million in the Defendant or the damaged company, the Defendant merely stated the above entry in the existing loan loan certificate prepared between the Defendant, I and K, etc., which had been the representative director at the time of the victimized company, and delivered it to E, and there was no involvement of K, etc. at the time of the victimized company’s representative director at the time of the above entry; and ③ Furthermore, the Defendant and I received a decision of provisional seizure of real estate against the victimized company based on the above loan certificate with the claim amount of KRW 2.