The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the defendant paid the attorney appointment fee at the expense of the victim union, but the above attorney’s fee was actually paid as expenses incurred in maintaining the partnership’s business without suspending its business, and thus the defendant’s act does not constitute a crime of occupational embezzlement.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (four months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the assertion of legal principles 1) An attorney-at-law fee which can be paid as expenses of an organization is limited to cases where the organization itself becomes a party to a lawsuit, so the attorney-at-law fee of the organization's representative cannot be paid as expenses of the organization. An exceptional case where a dispute arises in relation to an act performed by an individual in the status of a representative for legal reasons, although the organization has a substantial interest in a dispute, or where a dispute arises in relation to an act performed lawfully for legal reasons, or a representative's duty or representative's duty, etc., the court below can pay attorney-at-law fee at the expense of the organization only when there is a special need to conduct a lawsuit or respond to a complaint for the interests of the organization in light of the overall circumstances at the time when the dispute is closely related to the organization's work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do6280, Oct. 26, 2006; 2009Do3982, Sept. 24).

The executive officers of the victim union including the defendant have filed complaints and accusations several times while in office.