The appeal is dismissed.

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

1. As to the assertion that there was no conspiracy for embezzlement, the recognition of facts constituting an offense should be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence, which is based on the premise of fact finding, belong to the free judgment of

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, determined that each embezzlement committed by the Defendant on February 10, 2012, the 15th of the same month, March 2, 2012, the 7th of the same month, and April 10, 2012, and rejected the allegation in the grounds of appeal as to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

This part of the grounds of appeal is merely an error in the judgment of the court of fact-finding on the choice of evidence and probative value of the court of fact-finding, which is the purport of disputing the fact-finding of the court below.

Furthermore, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders.

2. As to the assertion that there was no intention of unlawful acquisition with respect to the crime of February 10, 2012, a stock company is independent of its shareholders and does not necessarily coincide with its understanding. Thus, if a shareholder or representative director arbitrarily disposes of the company’s property for private purposes, such as providing it as security for a third party’s financing, then he cannot be exempted from liability for the crime of embezzlement regardless of whether there was a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors regarding such disposition, and the intention of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement is himself.