The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing)

A. The funds of the victim that the defendant embezzled by mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are expenses disbursed by the defendant to cope with unfair criminal complaints arising in the process of the representative's work transfer and takeover while taking office as the representative of the victim.

In other words, since the defendant paid the above funds for the victim's performance of duties, the crime of embezzlement is not established against the defendant.

Nevertheless, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The first instance of the unfair sentencing decision (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, an attorney-at-law fee, which can be disbursed as expenses of an organization in principle, is limited to the case where the organization itself becomes a party to a lawsuit, so the attorney-at-law fee of a civil and criminal case who is an individual of an organization cannot be disbursed as expenses of an organization. An exceptional case where a dispute arises in relation to an act, etc. which is performed by an individual who is in the status of a representative for legal reasons, but has become a party to a lawsuit or other legal procedure, or a legal act lawfully conducted for the sake of an organization as a representative or a representative, the attorney-at-law fee may be paid at the expense of an organization only when there is a special need to conduct a lawsuit or respond to a complaint in light of the overall circumstances at the time when the legal dispute is closely related to the organization's business (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6280, Oct. 26, 2006).