The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, who is the wife of the instant facts charged, is a person who actually works as the president from D to June 2014, which is a victim foundation in the name of the president of the instant case, to the victim foundation in the name of the wife C, and has overall control over all the affairs, such as the management of property of the said foundation, which is the president’s business.

A. On November 30, 2015, the Defendant embezzled the leased deposit money, in D, an incorporated foundation E, in which the lessor agreed to lease the said foundation, lessee, F, and the deposit amount of KRW 150 million with respect to the building, etc. of the said incorporated foundation. In such a case, according to the articles of incorporation of the said incorporated foundation, the lessor leased the leased deposit after undergoing a resolution of the board of directors pursuant to the above incorporated foundation’s articles of incorporation, and deposited and managed the leased deposit in the deposit account in the name of the incorporated foundation, but at that time, the leased deposit amount of KRW 150 million owned by the victim was deposited in cash and personal account and embezzled on his/her own.

B. On June 11, 2016, the Defendant embezzled, such as shootings, which had been exhibited in the territory of stuffed articles, sold at will to G merchants collecting curios at KRW 27 million, while he/she kept 193 (357,50,000 as reported values) as indicated in the list of crimes, such as 44 points in possession of victims, which are kept in the above museum and reported as ordinary property in accordance with the articles of incorporation of the said foundation, and embezzled by arbitrarily selling them at KRW 27 million.

2. Determination

A. 1) In embezzlement, an unlawful acquisition intent refers to an intention to dispose of another’s property by himself/herself as if he/she were his/her own property in violation of the purpose of the entrustment with the intent of having the custodian of another’s property gain his/her own interest or a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do658, Aug. 30, 2016). 2) Since the burden of proof on unlawful acquisition intent in embezzlement exists with respect to occupational embezzlement, the burden of proof exists with respect to an unlawful acquisition intent. Thus, even if the use of certain money has been set abstractly, the specific purpose or place of use is used.