The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) As to the facts constituting the crime of paragraphs (3) and (5) of the judgment below, the defendant is the victim C Co., Ltd (hereinafter "victim").

(2) It is unreasonable that the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 190,60,000 is not reflected in the calculation of the amount of embezzlement, because it is intended to repay the money as stated in the judgment, and thus, there is no intent to obtain unlawful acquisition. As long as the ownership of the money is transferred to the Defendant by such act of borrowing, the consumption of the money is merely an consumption of one’s own money.

(The minimum sentencing must be reflected). (b)

The sentencing (two years of imprisonment) of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Whether the act of withdrawing money under the pretext of provisional payment constitutes embezzlement does not necessarily coincide with the understanding of the company as an independent right holder separate from shareholders. Thus, if a shareholder or representative director disposes of the company's property for private purposes, regardless of whether there was a resolution by the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors regarding the disposal, the crime of embezzlement cannot be exempted. In the crime of embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition refers to the intention of disposing another person's property in violation of his/her occupational duties for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, and is intended to return it or compensate for it later.

Even if there is no obstacle to recognizing the intention of illegal acquisition, and it is not necessary to deduct the amount of compensation or preservation after the fact from the amount of embezzlement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3399, May 27, 2010). Moreover, there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement.