The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. The Defendant alleged a mistake of facts was paid by the victim for the 350,000 won of general affairs allowance, 300,000 won of certified judicial scrivener’s expenses, and the litigation expenses for the 11-month period after the dismissal of general affairs, and thus, the Defendant did not return the 3,200,000 won of the retirement reserve of the head of the management office for the purpose of settlement.

In addition, on July 13, 2018, the Defendant, after the sentence of the lower judgment, remitted the amount of KRW 3,200,000 to the victim’s retirement reserve of the Director of the Management Office, and made clear that there is no intention of unlawful acquisition.

However, since the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, the court below erred by mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won of fine) on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts is that the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement means the actual or legal disposal of another person's property, such as his/her own property, which he/she has violated his/her duty, for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, and even if he/she has an intention to return, compensate, or preserve it later, there is no problem in recognizing the intention of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do408, Jul. 9, 1999). The court below found the guilty of the charge of this case by comprehensively taking into account the evidence in the judgment below, that the act of using funds for purposes other than the limited purpose upon being entrusted with strict limited purpose by others is not only the personal purpose but also the act of using funds, even if the entrusted person is above the entrusted person, thereby realizing the intention of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4923, Mar. 14, 2000).

The court below held.