The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) An attorney-at-law’s fee for occupational embezzlement falls under the general service cost related to school affairs and can be disbursed from school expense accounts, and the Defendants did not have an intention of embezzlement. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) It is difficult to view the victim’s obstruction of business as a business worthy of protecting the victim’s business, and therefore, the Defendants did not have

Even if it is not so, the defendants' act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act and thus the illegality is excluded.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles: (a) the use of funds for purposes other than for a limited purpose is derived from personal purpose while being entrusted with a limited amount of funds by others; (b) as a result, even if a person who entrusted the funds is above the entrusted principal, the act of use itself constitutes embezzlement by realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition. Since the income belonging to the accounts of school expenses is strictly limited, such as transfer or lending of the income belonging to the accounts of a private school to other accounts, and such use is strictly limited, if the income belonging to the accounts of school expenses of the private school is used for purposes other than those included in the expenditures of the due school expenses accounts, such act of use itself constitutes an unlawful acquisition intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1080, Nov. 28, 2013).