The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, as a general manager of the literature C (hereinafter “the instant literature”), managed the land Kimhae-si E (hereinafter “the instant land”) and was allowed to use part of his withdrawal as a starting product, and used the money paid by F as rent for the instant land for purchase of a product describing the description in the instant literature and for other expenses, and thus, it did not constitute embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, in order to establish the crime of embezzlement in the course of occupational duties, a person who keeps another’s property in violation of his/her occupational duties with the intent of unlawful acquisition (Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act). Here, “an intention of unlawful acquisition” refers to a case where a person who keeps another’s property owns another’s property in violation of his/her occupational duties for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party and disposes of another’s property in fact or in law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7637, Aug. 23, 2013). In embezzlement, a prosecutor must prove that there was an act of embezzlement in the course of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition and embezzlement, and such proof should be based on strict evidence with probative value sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, and even if there is no doubt as to whether the Defendant has been entrusted with his/her own interest or interest, there is no doubt that the Defendant has received the money.