The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles on the intent of unlawful acquisition, the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged of the instant case on the premise that the Defendant intended to dispose of the said money, by misapprehending the legal principles on the intent of unlawful acquisition, even though he did not arbitrarily deposit and manage the amount equivalent to the purchase cost of meal expenses or group uniforms in the F personal name for the convenience of operation of the Nice Center, a private teaching team leader, and the Defendant did not want to dispose of the said money without excluding the victim.

The argument is asserted.

However, the intention of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to the intention to dispose of another person's property in his/her custody in violation of his/her duties, such as his/her own property, for the purpose of seeking his/her own interest or a third party's interest, and there is an intention to return, compensate or preserve it later.

Even if the intent of unlawful acquisition may be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do11263, Dec. 24, 2014, etc.). The lower court recognized that the Defendant instructed F to deposit part of the daily personal leson’s payment into the account in the name of F, not the one agreed with the victim, without notifying the victim of the fact in the operation of the Defendant’s business with the victim. The lower court recognized that the Defendant had the intent of unlawful acquisition, which actually intended to dispose of part of the revenues of the business as owned by the Defendant.

The decision was determined.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the intent to acquire unlawful acquisition or by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles on the timing of embezzlement, the Defendant transferred money deposited in his own account under the name of the F to the Defendant’s account, and the Defendant, even if so, keeps it.