The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the part concerning occupational embezzlement of Paragraph (1) of the instant facts charged, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the part concerning occupational embezzlement of Articles 2 and 3 of the instant facts charged

A. In the crime of occupational embezzlement, the term “illegal acquisition intent” refers to an intention to dispose of another person’s property held in his/her custody in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own or a third party’s interest, such as having been owned by himself/herself, and the fact that there was embezzlement as an act of realizing an intent to acquire unlawful acquisition, shall be attested by strict evidence with probative value that makes the prosecutor feel no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of the Defendant’s guilt is doubtful.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the crime of embezzlement is established on the part of the representative director, who held a personal claim against the company and used the company’s monetary appropriation for the repayment of the company’s monetary appropriation for the payment of the company’s monetary appropriation for the payment of the company’s monetary appropriation for the payment of the company’s monetary appropriation for the company’s monetary appropriation for the payment of the company’s monetary appropriation for the company’s monetary appropriation for the payment of the company’s monetary appropriation for

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5459, Jul. 26, 2002).

The judgment below

The reasons and records are as follows.