The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant in mistake of facts remitted KRW 1,032,660,871 in total to the victim company by June 4, 2010, and received KRW 846,749,39 on a total of 81 occasions from the victim company from July 7, 2010 to December 4, 2012.

Since the defendant received money from the victim company as a repayment of borrowed money, etc., the defendant did not embezzled the money of the victim company, but did not have any intention of unlawful acquisition.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant embezzled totaling KRW 266,532,660 on 36 occasions from October 22, 2010 to August 10, 2012, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (two years of suspended execution for one year of imprisonment, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts is made on the company’s account books that the representative director of the company used money in his/her business as provisional money by the above representative director, but if the above representative director voluntarily consumeds the above money, which is funds owned by the company, for personal use, it shall constitute an occupational embezzlement. On the other hand, the above representative director’s embezzlement of the company’s money under his/her business custody with the intent of unlawful acquisition, and as long as the crime was established by embezzlement of the company’s money with the intent of unlawful acquisition, it does not affect the crime of occupational embezzlement already established at the time of using the money (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7585, Jun. 16, 2006). Since the crime of occupational embezzlement is established when the intent of unlawful acquisition was finally expressed externally, the crime of occupational embezzlement is established when the intent of unlawful acquisition was externally expressed. Even if the person who committed the crime of embezzlement had a separate monetary claim against the owner of the goods, it may not affect the already established occupational embezzlement solely due to such reason,