The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 25,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not use the funds created by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles for personal purposes, but used most of the welfare expenses, such as business promotion expenses, school expenses, and holiday leave expenses, etc. of the executive staff members for boosting the morale of the company employees for the purpose of using them for the purpose of protecting the welfare expenses, such as business promotion expenses, school expenses, and holiday leave expenses, etc., and thus, the Defendant did not have

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) can be inferred that the Defendant embezzled the money with the intent of unlawful acquisition, in cases where there are insufficient materials to support the fact that the Defendant used the funds in the place of use claimed by the Defendant, such as the withdrawal of the company’s funds kept and managed by the Defendant, the use of the funds, or the disclosure that the funds used in the place of use claimed by the Defendant were appropriated for funds other than those of the funds. Rather, there are many materials to prove credibility as to the fact that the Defendant used the funds for personal purposes.

However, barring such circumstances as where the Defendant provided an explanation about the whereabouts or the place of use of non-financial resources for reasons for which it is difficult to recognize the existence of an intent to obtain unlawful acquisition, and there are materials corresponding thereto, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant arbitrarily withdrawn and embezzled funds that were kept and managed by the Defendant with the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition, unless it is recognized that the Defendant has separately deposited or returned the following sufficient money consumed for other purposes:

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4784, Feb. 26, 2009). In addition, the fact that the Defendant used the company’s secret funds is recognized.