The judgment below

The non-guilty part is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Jeju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the occupational embezzlement is that “The Defendant is the president of the Victim B (hereinafter “victim”)’s home established and operated by the Victim B (hereinafter “victim”), and C Child Care Center Board members concluded a contract with the operating company for the implementation of the Infant Special Activity Education Program for the young children and received some of the special activity expenses to be paid to the operating company and used for the personal purpose.

When entering into a special activity contract with G around March 2010, the Defendant collected some of the special activity expenses from the members of C Child Care Center and paid KRW 5,400,000 to G for the sake of the victim. On March 31, 2010, the Defendant returned KRW 1,070,000 out of the special activity expenses to the account under the name of his spouse D and embezzled the said amount by using the special activity expenses, etc. around that time, while keeping the special activity expenses to be paid to the operating company from around April 30, 2013 to April 30, 2013.

“” is:

2. The lower court: (i) the Defendant entered into a contract for the operation of special activities on behalf of the victim in relation to the special activity program; (ii) the fact that childcare guardians who applied for the above special activity program paid the special activity expenses to the account in the name of the victim; (iii) the special activity expenses are not determined upon consultation between the victim and the special activity operator; and (iv) the amount determined by the special activity operator, presenting the price generally received from the child care center; and (v) the special activity expenses that the Defendant received from the child care guardian.