The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) for the purpose of distributing equipment related to the golf practice range located in the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from October 22, 2012 to October 22, 2013.

On November 21, 2012, the Defendant, while keeping the public funds of the said company in the custody of the said company’s business, transferred KRW 280 million from the corporate bank account (H) in the name of the said company to the account of the Nonghyup Bank (J) in the name of the Defendant, the head of the said company. On November 22, 2012, 201, the following day, at the request of K to lend money from the said company, while withdrawing the money in the check and keeping it in the custody, the Defendant arbitrarily lent KRW 200 million from the said company’s public funds to the L (M) designated by K.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled 200 million won of public funds of the victim company, which was in custody in the course of business.

2. Determination

A. For the establishment of the crime of occupational embezzlement, a person who keeps another’s property should either embezzled or refuse to return the property in violation of his/her occupational duty with the intent of unlawful acquisition. Here, “the intention of unlawful acquisition” refers to the intention of disposal in fact or in law, such as where the person who keeps another’s property, actually or legally, holds another’s property in violation of his/her occupational duty for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of embezzlement and embezzlement, etc., and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

Supreme Court Decision 199Na1488 delivered on February 13, 1998