The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The defendant above.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are acts for the principal, a truster, inasmuch as the portion used as interest on a loan by reducing the amount from the management expenses of H (hereinafter referred to as “H”) that is an incorporated foundation, is an act for the principal, and thus there is no intent to obtain unlawful acquisition, and even the portion used as the L-based L-based capital is paid. Therefore, the crime of embezzlement is not established as there is no

In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

In the crime of occupational embezzlement in determining the mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the intention of unlawful acquisition means the intention to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her duties, such as his/her own property for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, and there is an intention to return, compensate or preserve it later.

Even if this is recognized, there is no obstacle.

In addition, the crime of occupational embezzlement is established when the intent of the above unlawful acquisition was explicitly expressed outside, so the person who committed the crime of embezzlement had a separate monetary claim against the owner of the property.

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 95Do59 Decided March 14, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3431 Decided June 2, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 201Do7566 Decided March 13, 2014, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, there was a conflict over a considerable period of time between H and Ulsan-gu office due to the issue of permission for the establishment of H’s circulation roads and the sale of additional cemeteries. Accordingly, the Defendant’s real estate in the name of the Defendant and the Defendant’s father A as security.