The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is only that the amount withdrawn from the victim’s new bank account under the name of the victim C, which the defendant managed, was deposited into the victim’s national bank account in the name of the law firm and repaid the victim’s debt.

The defendant's act does not constitute embezzlement as a repayment of personal debt.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The gist of the facts charged is that a notary public is the representative attorney of the law firm C, who manages the notarial revenue of the said legal entity.

On November 22, 2012, the Defendant withdrawn KRW 7,700,000,000,000 from the said legal office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building 102, and withdrawn KRW 16,20,000,000 on December 14, 2012, and arbitrarily used the amount of KRW 16,20,000 for the Defendant’s personal debt repayment, etc. for the victim C while being kept in custody for the victim C.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

3. Judgment of the court below

A. The intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to the intent that the custodian of another’s property intends to dispose of the owner’s disposal (including refusal to return) without authority contrary to the purport of the entrustment. Thus, the custodian is not for his own interest or a third party’s interest, but for the disposal of it for the benefit of the owner, barring special circumstances, the custodian’s intent of unlawful acquisition can not be recognized. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving that there was an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition. The proof is based on strict evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel a reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

B. The court below held.