All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

A. The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3 and 5 through 9 are independent rights independent of the shareholders, and their interests are not necessarily inconsistent. Thus, if a shareholder or representative director arbitrarily disposes of the company’s property for private purposes, such as providing it as security for a third party’s financing, then the crime of embezzlement cannot be exempted.

In addition, the intention of illegal acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to the intention to dispose of another person's property in breach of his/her duties, such as his/her own property, for the purpose of seeking his/her own interest or a third party's interest.

Even if there is no obstacle to recognizing the intention of illegal acquisition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3045 Decided August 19, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8851 Decided December 23, 2010, etc.). In addition, if a representative director uses money owned by the company for his/her own personal purposes not for the repayment of his/her claim against the company, but for his/her own personal purposes based on the intent of unlawful acquisition, it constitutes an occupational embezzlement. In such a case, the representative director does not change solely on the ground that he/she has a claim against the company or a claim against the company.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do5772, Jun. 1, 2007; 2010Do9627, Jul. 14, 201). The lower court determined that Defendant A is only an AI corporation (hereinafter referred to as “AI”) at the time of Defendant A’s occurrence.

AJ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AJ”), a subsidiary of the AJ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AJ”).

In regard to the assertion that a claim for indemnity with a reasonable amount of money has been made and that even if the company withdraws its funds within the scope of the amount and uses them for personal purposes, it would later be treated as repayment of the amount, and thus, it would not be embezzled, the existence and scope of the claim for indemnity has been determined as alleged by the above defendant.