The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the Defendant alleged in the statement of grounds for appeal that the grounds for appeal purported to the misapprehension of legal principles and mental and physical disorder, the Defendant and the defense counsel withdrawn all of them on the third trial date of the party trial.

Table of misunderstanding of Fact-finding

1. In full view of the grounds of appeal, etc. submitted by the Defendant and the grounds of appeal, etc. submitted by the Defendant, and the arguments by the Defendant and his defense counsel during the trial date, the following arguments are made. The Defendant’s family on October 16, 2006 (hereinafter “victim’s clan”).

(2) The court below's decision is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts, since the defendant, who was the chairperson of the victim's clan, has withdrawn KRW 30 million from the DNA bank account, but the defendant does not embezzled it. Some of the above money, which was the chairperson of the victim's clan, has been compensated for the past expenses incurred for the victim's clan, and the remainder has been withdrawn for the defendant to use for the victim's clan. Nevertheless, the court below determined that this part of the above 30 million won was embezzled by the defendant, which was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. (b) The court below's decision of unfair sentencing is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts

2. Determination

A. 1) With respect to the assertion of mistake of facts, the intention of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement in the crime of occupational embezzlement refers to the intent of disposing another person's property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, and if the representative director of a stock company withdraws and uses the company's money, and fails to present evidentiary documents as to the place of use, and there is no reasonable explanation as to the reasons for withdrawal and the place of use, such money may be inferred to be used for personal purposes by withdrawing the company's money with the intent of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do2807, Aug. 22, 2003; 2007Do9250, Mar. 27, 2008).