The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s mistake or misapprehension of the legal principle) The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the crime of violation of the Private School Act committed by P University on the part of violation of the Private School Act (hereinafter “R”) constitutes an act of paying rent deposit and rent to R as an illegal transfer of tuition, since the P University leased W Building BC Dongs from the school juristic person R (hereinafter “R”) and used them for the purpose of lifelong education center, curriculum of students entrusted to the industry, and part of the department. As such, the act of P University paid rent and rent to R constitutes “expenses for facilities and equipment directly necessary for school education (Article 13(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act).”

W Building BC Dong originally intended to construct a new school educational facility by inserting its tuition fees, but due to the decrease in the number of students, it was inevitable to avoid the construction cost only due to the reduction in the number of students, and R was obligated to pay a considerable amount of construction cost while carrying out new construction on behalf of the P University. R was granted a large amount of loans from financial institutions to repay the above construction cost and prepare school expenses to be refunded to the P University. R was used to repay the above loans, the deposit and rent paid from the P University was used to repay the above loans, and the amount of the deposit and rent for the lease was reasonably calculated through an appraisal and assessment. In light of the above, Defendant A had no criminal intent of embezzlement and intent to acquire illegal profits.

P University's payment of the deposit leased to R is merely a change in the form of the custody of the money, and does not constitute a voluntary consumption, which is a requirement for embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the court below found the above lease deposit and rent payment constitute occupational embezzlement and violation of the Private School Act. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.