The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding Defendant’s personal use of the funds of Victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) in relation to the fact of embezzlement 1, 2 again in the annexed crime list Nos. 1, 2 as indicated in the judgment below. However, it is merely an illegal acquisition intent on the ground that it is merely a use of the funds under the pretext of debt repayment, on the ground that the Defendant, as the representative director of the victimized Co., Ltd. as a substitute for the duties of the representative director of the victimized Co., Ltd., has a loan or indemnity related to the acquisition of the company, a claim equivalent to

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and embezzled the above money at will by the defendant.

In other words, the court has determined the person.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In order to establish a crime of embezzlement for the sake of establishing the relevant legal doctrine, the intent of unlawful acquisition, which refers to the actual or legal intent to dispose of another’s property in his/her custody by violating his/her occupational duty for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, should be the sole owner of his/her property.

If an operator or a manager of a corporation withdraws the corporation’s funds for the purpose of using them for a corporation, not for a corporation’s purpose, or for personal purpose, the intent of unlawful acquisition should be deemed as realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6994, Feb. 12, 2009). Even if a person who committed an embezzlement has a separate monetary claim against the owner of an article, such circumstance alone cannot affect the crime of embezzlement already established, barring special circumstances, such as the set-off before the crime of embezzlement was committed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9871, Jun. 14, 2012).