The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by six months of imprisonment.

(2) the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding 1) The Defendant merely lent KRW 30 million, October 10, 2012, and KRW 30 million, from November 29, 2013 to December 6, 2013, to G with a higher interest rate than bank interest for the benefit of E, and there was no intention of embezzlement or illegal acquisition of E’s money.

2) The Defendant did not lend KRW 30 million to G on August 1, 2014.

It is only the extension of the repayment period of existing loans.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Of October 10, 2012, KRW 30 million, and KRW 30 million from November 29, 2013 to December 6, 2013, the part 1) that the representative director of a company withdraws and uses large company funds for purposes other than the provisional payment for the purpose of the company under the name of the provisional payment deposit, etc., and that there is no agreement on interest or maturity for payment, and that it does not go through lawful procedures such as a resolution of the board of directors, etc., it goes beyond the generally acceptable scope, and it constitutes embezzlement, as it is nothing more than lending and disposing of company funds at will for private purposes by using the status of the representative director (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do135, Apr. 27, 2006). Meanwhile, in embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition is an intention of unlawful acquisition.

The term "an intention to dispose of property of another person in violation of his/her duty for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party, such as his/her own property, and even if there is an intention to return, compensate or preserve it later, there is no difficulty in recognizing the intention of illegal acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5167, Nov. 10, 2006). As such, the amount of compensation or preservation after the fact is not required to be deducted from the amount of embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3399, May 27, 2010). In full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted, Article 13 (1) of the E Regulations at the time when the defendant lends money to the chairperson of E.