The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant: (a) knew that I, his father, was the manager of the instant building (Seoul Gangnam-gu H building located in Gangnam-gu), and had I pay I money in the name of salary, with the knowledge that I would normally perform his duties (I merely did not attend the first time and did not hear wrong advice that I would not have been made from the employee of the educational foundation of the injured party while working at the school). The Defendant did not have any intention to acquire illegal profits with the absence of the criminal intent of occupational embezzlement.

(F) No later than January 2007, there was no intention of embezzlement or illegal acquisition prior to the time when I entered Canada.

The punishment of 10 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In order to establish a crime of embezzlement as to the assertion of mistake of facts, a person who keeps another's property in violation of his/her occupational duty with the intent of unlawful acquisition and thus, should embezzlement or refuse to return the property (Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act). Here, "the intention of unlawful acquisition" refers to an intention to dispose of another's property in fact or in law, such as the case where the person who keeps another's property owns the property in violation of his/her occupational duty for the purpose of pursuing his/her own or a third party's interest. 2) In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court, the lower court and the trial court, as the chief director, have the Defendant, who is in the occupational duty to preserve the property of the victim school juristic person (hereinafter "victim juristic person"), was in violation of the above duty with the intention of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or I, and thus, he/she had the Defendant paid the property of the victim juristic person as stated in the lower judgment.