The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Gangseo branch court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the chief of the school juristic person C (hereinafter “C”), D, the office chief of C, the president of the F University under C, and G, who served as the Chief of F University Educational Affairs in the East Sea.

E and G were convicted of having been convicted of violating the Higher Education Act due to the suspicion of granting a bachelor’s degree by unlawful means, such as giving the students with the number of school days to the mother and child, etc.

On June 7, 2012, the Defendant, in collusion with D, embezzled the said money from corporate accounting funds by allowing the payment of KRW 5,500,000,000 for attorney-at-law appointment in the case of violation of the High Education Act, and KRW 3,30,000,000 for the case of violation of the High Education Act by G, etc. on September 3, 2012.

2. The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

There is a need to respond to a lawsuit for the benefit of C, which is not his own interest or a third party's interest.

As a result, there was no intention of illegal acquisition or embezzlement because of the approval of the disbursement of attorney appointment expenses.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion.

3. However, the above determination by the lower court is difficult to accept as it is.

A. In the crime of embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition refers to the intent of a person who keeps another’s property as if he/she actually or legally owns the property without authority for his/her own or a third party’s interest in violation of the purpose of entrustment. Therefore, in cases where the custodian disposes of it for the benefit of the owner, not for his/her own or a third party’s interest, barring any special circumstance, the intent of unlawful acquisition cannot be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Do3009, Mar. 9, 1982). In the event that the custodian disposes of it for the benefit of the owner, the custodian is not for the benefit of himself/herself or a third party (see