The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inasmuch as the use of expenses for erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is nominal, such as an employee’s prefacing gift, and the Defendant spent for the operation of the organization without personal intent, the Defendant did not have an intent to obtain unlawful profits.

The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In order to establish the crime of occupational embezzlement, a person who keeps another's property as his/her business violates his/her occupational duty with the intent of unlawful acquisition, and thus, should embezzlement or refuse to return the property. Here, the intent of unlawful acquisition refers to a person who keeps another's property in violation of his/her occupational duty for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party and disposes of another's property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5439, Feb. 5, 2002). Meanwhile, where the defendant denies the existence of an intention of unlawful acquisition by asserting that he/she used the company's non-financing, despite recognizing the fact that the defendant used the company's non-financing, the defendant withdraws the funds for the company, and denies the existence of an intention of unlawful acquisition by asserting that it was ordinarily incurred in the course of the company's operation, whether it is reasonable for the company to bear the expenses, specific timing for the use of the funds, scope and amount, etc., and whether it was reasonable or reasonable in light of general internal regulations.