The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Erroration of the gist of the grounds for appeal [i.e., occupational embezzlement: there was no intention or intention of unlawful acquisition of embezzlement against the defendant; ② there was a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on execution of the reserve fund of the defendant in relation to the violation of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents; and the defendant did not execute the fund at will]; and 2.

A. (1) As to the embezzlement of occupational embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition as referred to in the crime of embezzlement refers to the intention of completing another person’s property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, as if it were his/her own possession, or to dispose of the property in fact or in law. This is the intention of internal deliberation, and if the defendant denies it, the fact constituting such subjective element is bound to be proven by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance to the crime

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6756, Jun. 24, 2010). Meanwhile, in cases where a person in a position to execute a budget diverts the budget to meet the shortage of expenses not for his/her own interest but for his/her own interest, the use of the budget itself has an unlawful purpose.

Even in cases where the use of the budget is strictly limited, it is difficult to readily conclude that there was an intent to acquire unlawful profits on the sole basis of the fact that there was a usefulness for filling the interval when the expenditure could have been permitted upon the request of a certain procedure, because it is a necessary expense to be set or received at the original time, regardless of the cases where the use of the budget is strictly limited.

(2) In the instant case, the first instance court and the first instance court legitimately adopted the Defendant’s intent to commit the crime of embezzlement, including the intent of unlawful acquisition, on February 10, 1995 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do2911, Feb. 10, 1995).