All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, using funds for purposes other than for a limited purpose upon being entrusted with a limited amount of funds by others is attributable to an individual purpose, and as a result, the act of use itself realizes the intent of unlawful acquisition and thereby constitutes embezzlement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do9755, Feb. 29, 2008; 201Do12408, May 10, 2012). Furthermore, the crime of occupational embezzlement is established when the intent of unlawful acquisition is definitely expressed in the outside. As long as another person’s property in his/her occupational custody was embezzled with the intent of unlawful acquisition, the crime of occupational embezzlement cannot be affected by the crime of occupational embezzlement already established even if it was returned after the fact, compensated, or preserved.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 95Do59 Decided March 14, 1995, and 2010Do9871 Decided June 14, 2012, etc.). The first instance court and the lower court’s adopted evidence comprehensively acknowledged the facts and circumstances as indicated in its reasoning. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and violation of the Private School Act among the charges by determining that the Defendant arbitrarily used school expenses, such as costs for practical training, by using the account in the name of business partner’s representative or employee or by directly withdrawing from the account in the name of the school or by directly withdrawing from the account in the name of the school. The lower court convicted the Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the violation of the Private School Act.