Defendant

All appeals filed by A and B and prosecutor against Defendant C are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A and B (1) occupational embezzlement, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) received support of the development cost of KRW 16 million from the F University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (hereinafter “ Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation”) (hereinafter “ Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation”) which is the main institution of the K project (hereinafter “instant project”), Defendant A was not informed by the East Sea-si and the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation that there was a limitation on the purpose of use, method of storage, execution, etc. of the said money.

Accordingly, Defendant A did not manage the instant money in a separate account and stored it in combination with other funds through the Defendant Company’s existing deposit account.

After that, as the defendant company intended to make a provisional seizure of the deposit account of the defendant company as a result of the dispute between the specific transaction partner and the transaction partner, the defendant company withdrawn the money of this case in order to prevent provisional seizure of the money of this case, not to withdraw it from the intent of embezzlement.

Even if Defendant A withdrawn the instant money and used it for other purposes, insofar as Defendant A disbursed the amount equivalent to the instant money for the instant project, it cannot be deemed as occupational embezzlement.

In addition, Defendant A, as the representative director of Defendant Company, has a legitimate authority to withdraw the deposit of Defendant Company, and withdrawn the instant money under the said authority. Thus, unless Defendant A, ultimately, has leaked the instant money outside of the company and intended to revert it to Defendant A, it shall not be regarded as a crime of occupational embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant A guilty of the charge of occupational embezzlement, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

(2) As to the violation of the Food Sanitation Act, it is contained in the maririth Meal of hemp.