All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. The representative director of a company who violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) voluntarily lends and disposes of company funds for private purposes by taking advantage of the status of the representative director beyond the generally acceptable scope and thus constitutes embezzlement, if the representative director of the company withdraws and uses large company funds for any purpose other than expenditure for the company as provisional payment, etc., and does not go through legitimate procedures such as a resolution of the board of directors, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do135, Apr. 27, 2006; 2010Do3399, May 27, 2010). In the crime of occupational embezzlement, the intent to acquire unlawful acquisition refers to the intention to dispose of another person’s property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own or a third party’s interest, such as having been actually or legally disposed of, or having the intention to return, reimburse, or preserve, the property later does not interfere with the recognition of the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition.

(2) The court below held that the defendant, the representative director of the victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "G") under the evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance, withdrawn the company fund of KRW 12.155 million in total from the account in G under the name of G for the purpose of stock investment or private use and did not follow lawful procedures such as approval of the board of directors. The court below acknowledged that the defendant's status, the purpose of using the fund that was withdrawn from G for the purpose of using the fund that was approved by the board of directors, and the defendant gave rise to the withdrawal of G funds over a long period from January 2, 2009 to June 2, 2012. The court below held that the defendant was also liable for a large amount of debt, and thus the defendant also bears the motive for investment in stocks.