The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant lent a total of KRW 230 million of company funds to E to resolve the company’s loan interest with the consent of F, the representative director of the victimized company. As such, the Defendant did not intend to commit occupational embezzlement or to obtain illegal gains.

Therefore, the court below found the Defendant guilty, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, a stock company is an independent right independent of its shareholders, and its understanding is not necessarily consistent. Thus, if a shareholder or representative director arbitrarily disposes of the company’s property for private purposes, such as providing it as a security for a third party’s financing, then he/she cannot be exempted from liability for crime of embezzlement regardless of whether there was a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors on such disposition. The intention of unlawful acquisition in embezzlement is

In light of the above legal principles, even if there is an intention to return, compensate, or preserve the property of another person in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party, it does not hinder the recognition of the intention of unlawful acquisition (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3045 Decided August 19, 2005). In full view of the following circumstances and recognized by the record, the Defendant appears to have lent money to E for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or E.

Therefore, the defendant embezzleds the funds of the damaged company.

The judgment of the court below is just, and there is a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.