The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If the representative director of a stock company withdraws and uses the company's funds, and fails to present evidentiary materials as to the place of use, and fails to give reasonable explanation as to the grounds for withdrawal and the place of use of the funds, this part may be inferred by withdrawing the company's funds with the intent of unlawful acquisition and using them for personal purposes.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is justified in finding the guilty of all of the violation (Embezzlement) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012) out of the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, based on the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof, the criminal intent of embezzlement, and the intention of unlawful acquisition, etc.

2. As to the violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies on External Audit due to False or False Financial Statements Preparation and Disclosure, the lower court acknowledged the fact that K (hereinafter “K”) did not obtain sales and net profit, such as the details of sales and net profit, from which the exhaust gas reduction device was actually sold to a Japanese corporation AF corporation through O, on the grounds that it is not recognized, from among the facts charged in the instant case, the former Act on External Audit of Stock Companies (amended by Act No. 9408, Feb. 3, 2009) and the former External Audit of Stock Companies.