The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Whether it falls under the expenditure of the accounts for school expenses that are allowed to be disbursed by revenue belonging to the accounts for school expenses under the Private School Act shall be determined according to whether it is directly required for the school education in comprehensive consideration of various circumstances related to the expenditure.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7138 delivered on February 5, 2002). Meanwhile, it is established that the act of use itself realizes the intent of unlawful acquisition, even if it is exempted from the entrustment of funds, and thus, it is established that the act of use itself realizes the intent of unlawful acquisition.

Therefore, if income belonging to the accounts of private schools is used for any purpose other than that directly necessary for the education of the relevant school, the act of using such income itself constitutes realizing the intention of unlawful acquisition and thereby cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9755 Decided February 29, 2008). Examining the aforementioned legal principles, and evidence duly admitted and investigated by the original court and the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the facts charged in the instant case is guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

In doing so, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the Private School Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and intent of unlawful acquisition.

The judgment cited in the ground of appeal is different from this case, and it is not appropriate to be invoked in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.