The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the Defendant kept the instant embezzlement in order to adjust the cash sales performance; (b) the Defendant intended to return the embezzlement after the cash sales performance; (c) the Defendant refused to receive the payment; (d) thereafter, the Defendant was appropriated for the wages that the Defendant would have received from the victim; and (b) the embezzlement related to the roadside was deposited into the management account of the street store registration fee in the name of I on March 21, 2012; and thus, there was no intent to obtain unlawful profits from the Defendant

2. In the crime of occupational embezzlement, the expression “an intention to obtain unjust enrichment” means an intention to dispose of the property of another person in breach of his or her occupational duty, such as in the case of his or her own possession, or to return, compensate or preserve it later.

Even if this is recognized, there is no obstacle.

In addition, since the crime of occupational embezzlement is established when the intent of the above illegal acquisition was explicitly expressed externally, the person who committed the crime of embezzlement had a separate monetary claim against the owner of the goods.

In the absence of special circumstances such as the settlement of offset before the crime of embezzlement, such circumstance alone cannot affect the crime of occupational embezzlement already established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9871 Decided June 14, 2012). As the Defendant’s assertion, the head of the team, who exercises overall control over sales management as an employee of a victim, was working for the Defendant.

Even if the defendant did not report the embezzlement of this case, which is the membership registration fee, to the victim, and deposited the money into the defendant's personal account free of deposit and withdrawal, it is deemed as embezzlement by itself by the realization of the intention of illegal acquisition.

Therefore, the court below's decision that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and it is so decided even if all circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal are considered.