The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Gangseo branch court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged as follows.

The Defendant is the Secretary General of the School Foundation D (hereinafter referred to as the “D”), the Director of the Office of D, the President of the Office of D, the President of the F University under D, and the President of the F University under D, and G, who served as the Director of the F University Department.

E and G were convicted of having been convicted of violating the Higher Education Act due to the suspicion of granting a bachelor’s degree by unlawful means, such as giving the students with the number of school days to the mother and child, etc.

On June 7, 2012, the Defendant, in collusion with B, embezzled the above money by paying KRW 5,50,000,000 for attorney-at-law appointment in the case of violation of the High Education Act by E, and KRW 3,30,000,000 for attorney-at-law appointment in G, etc. on September 3, 2012.

2. However, the above determination by the lower court is difficult to accept as it is.

A. In the crime of embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to a person who keeps another’s property as if he/she owns the property without authority for his/her own or a third party’s interest in violation of the purpose of entrustment. Thus, in cases where the custodian disposes of the property for the benefit of his/her own or a third party, not for the benefit of his/her own or a third party, the intent of unlawful acquisition cannot be recognized unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do3009, Mar. 9, 1982, etc.). Using funds for purposes other than the limited purpose after being entrusted with the execution of a limited amount of funds by a third party is the act of use itself, and thus, it constitutes embezzlement (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do235, May 30, 2003, etc.). However, if it does not fall under such a case, the Defendant’s intent of unlawful acquisition is difficult to recognize the existence of the unlawful acquisition.