All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The defendant, under the understanding of T, has withdrawn the money paid to T for the purpose of wages and used it to repay the debt, and the court below convicted him of this part of the facts charged, even though he did not have embezzled the money as stated in the facts charged, there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the court below convicted him of this part of the facts charged.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

The punishment sentenced by the court below by the public prosecutor is too uneasible.

In the crime of occupational embezzlement in relation to the determination of the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, the intention to obtain unlawful acquisition refers to the intention to dispose of the property of another person in violation of his/her occupational duties, such as his/her own property, with the intention of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, and the intention to return or compensate for it later cannot be deemed to have no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition.

In addition, the crime of occupational embezzlement is established when the intent of the above unlawful acquisition was finally indicated. Thus, even if the person who committed the crime of embezzlement had a separate monetary claim against the owner of the goods, such circumstance alone cannot affect the crime of occupational embezzlement already established unless there are special circumstances, such as the settlement of accounts prior to the crime of embezzlement, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9871 Decided June 14, 2012, etc.). In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant transferred KRW 13320,000 to the NAC account in the name of the Defendant’s use of his/her personnel expenses for T, and embezzled by using his/her personal debt repayment is justifiable, and thus, this part of the lower judgment is justifiable.