The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal

A. 1) As to the violation of the Social Welfare Services Act and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), the Defendant also argued in the lower court that the following purport is the same as the grounds for appeal in this part.

In other words, as the Mapo Savings Bank, which is a financial institution for the PF loan related to social welfare business, was unable to grant a loan to the original Defendant due to the aggravation of financial standing and internal audit, etc., it was difficult to grant a loan of the PF funds that it agreed to lend to the original Defendant. As such, on September 1, 201, Defendant was arbitrarily terminated the term deposit account of this case, which is the basic property of F, and then, on the 6th day of the same month, Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the above circumstances, and Plaintiff notified the above circumstances, and first, the Plaintiff would recover the term deposit after the audit was completed and lend it to the Defendant normally and normally. The Defendant considered the above money as PF funds, and used it as operation funds related to social welfare business with the permission of the Mapo Savings Bank. Thus, the Defendant did not intentionally dispose of the basic property of F, but did not have any criminal intent to commit embezzlement.

In regard to this, the lower court’s ruling is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the ruling, namely, the deposit slip (integrated) of one bank prepared in the course of the transfer of KRW 1,632,340,260 to one bank account in the name of F on September 1, 201 and the transfer of KRW 1,632,340,260 on the same day.