The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The remainder of money excluding the money to be paid to the Company from the profits that the victim received as a result of replacing the new lane of occupational embezzlement is the ownership of the Defendant, the borrower, and cannot be deemed the property of another person.

8.3 million won consumed by the Defendant is limited to the reasons which are essential for the operation, such as replacement of parts of a decrepited vehicle, repair of vehicle air conditioners, and provision of vehicle drivers, and there was a criminal intent of embezzlement and illegal acquisition by the Defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The text message sent by the Defendant of intimidation cannot be deemed as a threat of harm that may cause fear to the other party or undermine the freedom of decision-making, and even if it constitutes a threat of harm and injury, illegality should be avoided as an act that does not go against social norms or is likely to be acceptable in light of social norms.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the occupational embezzlement, a vehicle generally incorporated into a company is attributed to the company the ownership or the right to manage the operation of the vehicle externally, and thus, if the borrower directly operates and manages the vehicle, the borrower is merely a substitute for the conduct belonging to the ordinary business affairs on the operation and management by delegation of the right to manage the operation of the vehicle in question from the company. As such, in trade within the ordinary business scope, the borrower actually engaged in after-school transactions.

In principle, only the observer and the other party are parties to the transaction, and the borrower is merely the representative of the company. Accordingly, the transportation amount received from the other party belongs to the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do4383, Mar. 9, 199). In light of the above legal principles, the party who receives the transportation amount from E even if the defendant entered the country, as alleged by the defendant, is paid the transportation amount.