The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

In this case.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (as to the embezzlement of oil expenses and organizational project costs under Paragraph (1) of the facts charged in the instant case), the Defendant only spent fuel expenses and organizational project costs in compliance with the purpose for the performance of the duties of D Trade Union, and did not constitute embezzlement by arbitrarily consuming them for personal purposes, such as this part of the charges

2. Determination as to the embezzlement of oil expenses among the facts charged in the instant case

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant subsidized the oil cost for the use of the Defendant’s own car for business purposes in the above trade union, and the Defendant, even though not using the Defendant’s car for business purposes, did not use the Defendant’s car for his own use at his own discretion.

On September 5, 2009, at the above trade union office located in Busan Dong-gu, Busan, the defendant ordered B, a person in charge of fund execution, to withdraw oil expenses for the operation of the passenger car business, and accordingly, B withdrawn from the funds of the above trade union as the oil expenses of the defendant and paid to the defendant.

In addition, from around that time to December 30, 2010, the Defendant withdrawn 2,761,000 won from the union under the name of oil expenses for all 37 times, as shown in the attached list of crimes, and wrongfully embezzled by using the Defendant’s personal use around that time.

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

C. In order for a crime of occupational embezzlement to be established, a person who keeps another's property as his/her business must either embezzlement or refuse to return the property in violation of his/her occupational duties with the intent of unlawful acquisition. Here, the intent of unlawful acquisition is the case where the person who keeps another's property in violation of his/her occupational duties for the purpose of achieving his/her own interest or a third party's property is one of his/her own property.