The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although it was true that the defendant used the funds of the victimized company, the victimized company was actually Defendant 1, and the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of the victimized company, provided the building site located in Bupyeong City owned by the defendant as collateral, repaid the debt of the victimized company with the defendant's own funds, and repaid the interest on the above loan with the defendant's money, and eventually repaid the above loan of the victimized company thereafter, the defendant did not have the intent of embezzlement or illegal acquisition at the time of the crime of this case.

However, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail on the grounds that the Defendant alleged the same as the grounds for appeal of this case, and on the premise that “the judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” was stated in the judgment of the lower court.

In addition, the circumstances indicated by the court below revealed that the defendant temporarily borrowed KRW 80 million out of the loans of the victimized company from the victimized company and there was no intent to commit embezzlement or to acquire illegal gains, but if borrowed, the defendant directly received the above amount from the victimized company, and later transferred the above KRW 800 million from the victimized company to the I corporation account on the date of the loan, and immediately thereafter used the personal debt repayment by transferring the above KRW 800 million to the I corporation account, and the lending to the victimized company is required to obtain the approval of the board of directors as a transaction between the director and the company, but not only did the approval of the board of directors, but also there was no loan contract, etc. as to the large amount of loans, the judgment of the court below that the defendant had the intent to commit embezzlement or to acquire illegal gains is justified, and it is so pointed out by the defendant.