All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in the event of supplement)

A. As to embezzlement in the course of occupational embezzlement, embezzlement is an offense involving embezzlement of, or refusing to return, another’s property by a person who keeps another’s property. Whether certain property is another’s property is determined by the Civil Act, the Commercial Act, or other civil substantive laws (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15350, Apr. 28, 201). In this context, the term “property custody” means a state in which a person has de facto or legal control over, and the custody should be based on a consignment relationship. However, the consignment relationship does not necessarily require the establishment of a contract, such as lending for use, delegation for the lease, etc., and may also be established by the customary rules of law on management of affairs.

(2) The Defendant, as a person in charge of research on the development, etc. of cell body reproduction technology conducted by an incorporated association (hereinafter “A Q”), has received research expenses from A Q to manage and execute research projects. Although the purpose of this part is specified for the Defendant to use research in biotechnology research, he/she has received research expenses from A Q to transfer research expenses to accounts in the name of AX, etc. for the purpose of purchasing experimental cattle, and kept them for business purposes from A Q as a person in charge of research on the development, etc. of cell body reproduction technology, etc.

9.1. Until July 1, 2000, a sum of KRW 475.5 million is concealed and consumed over 13 times in such a way as to withdraw cash from the above accounts and divide it into a borrowed deposit account in the name of the defendant in the name of each JP, and 1,50,000 from the above accounts on July 16, 2004.