All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that Defendant A borrowed money from Defendant B as management expenses under the name of provisional payment and repaid it without exception, there is no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition of embezzlement and there was no intention to commit embezzlement.

B. In light of the weak criminal intent of the Defendants, etc., the punishment of the first instance court (Defendant A: a fine of two million won, Defendant B: a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the representative director of the company did not have an agreement on interest or maturity for the withdrawal and use of the company funds for any purpose other than expenditure for the company as provisional payment, and the resolution of the board of directors does not go through legitimate procedures such as resolution of the board of directors is nothing more than that of arbitrarily lending and disposing of the company funds for private use by taking advantage of the status of representative director

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do135 Decided April 27, 2006, etc.). Meanwhile, in embezzlement, the intent to acquire unlawful property refers to the intent to dispose of the property of another person in violation of his/her duty to seek the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, as if the property of another person is owned by himself/herself, and there is an intention to return, reimburse, and preserve it later.

Even if there is no obstacle to recognizing the intention of illegal acquisition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5167 Decided November 10, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3399 Decided May 27, 2010, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, in this case, health care units and the Defendants have withdrawn money from the management expenses account of the first instance court, which the Defendants borrowed from the management expenses account, which the Defendants used for personal purposes without a temporary interest or the due date agreement, for personal purposes, as stated in the list of crimes in the annexed list of crimes in the first instance judgment. If the facts exist, the Defendants’ aforementioned facts are.