The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to a person who keeps another's property without authority for his own or a third party's interest in violation of the purpose of entrustment. Thus, in a case where the custodian disposes of it for the owner's interest rather than for his or a third party's own interest, the intent of unlawful acquisition cannot be recognized unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do3009, Mar. 9, 1982, etc.). In a case where the defendant denies the intention of unlawful acquisition, which constitutes such subjective element, by means of proving indirect or circumstantial evidence relevant to the nature of the object, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do5027, Jan. 28, 2016; Supreme Court Decision 200Do5027, Sept. 9, 2016; Supreme Court Decision 200Do9794, Sept. 9, 209).