All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23974, Jul. 24, 2012) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23974, Jul. 24, 2012) stipulates matters concerning the expenditure of the accounts for school expenses by delegation of Article 29(2) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 10906, Jul. 25, 201) provides that the expenditure of the accounts for school expenses shall be the expenditure of the accounts for school expenses prescribed in each subparagraph. In addition, the expenditure of the accounts for school expenses shall be the personnel expenses and goods ( Subparagraph 1), expenses for facilities and equipment directly necessary for school education ( Subparagraph 2), and other expenses directly necessary for school education ( Subparagraph 5). Thus, whether the expenditure from the accounts for school expenses falls under the expenditure of the accounts for school expenses that are allowed by revenue shall be determined by whether it is directly necessary

Meanwhile, the act of using funds entrusted to others for purposes other than the limited purpose is not only derived from the personal purpose, but also from the personal purpose, even if the entrusted principal is above the entrusted principal, and thus, the act of using funds itself realizes the intent of unlawful acquisition, thereby establishing embezzlement. As such, if the income belonging to the accounts of private schools is used for the purpose other than that of the legitimate school education, i.e., the act of using the income belonging to the accounts of school expenses in question, which is included in the expenditure of the legitimate school expenses accounts, i.e., the act of using the income in question, which is not directly necessary for the school education,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9755 Decided February 29, 2008, etc.). The lower court, in collusion with Defendant A, the president of the F University, and Defendant B, the deputy secretary-general of the said university, to the Defendants out of the funds belonging to the accounts of the said university.