The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the amount invested by the Defendant in the victim company is KRW 40 million, and the benefits that the Defendant and her husband did not receive from the victim company until the victim company was transferred from C to the time of acquisition of the victim company is considerable, even if the Defendant remitted the amount directly received from the account of the victim company, it cannot be said that the Defendant had an intention of unlawful acquisition.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment with labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of occupational embezzlement in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition refers to the intention to dispose of another person’s property in breach of his/her duties, such as his/her own property, with the aim of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do15895 Decided May 16, 2014). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant remitted the sum of KRW 120 million from April 2014 to his/her own Daegu Bank account from January 2018 (Additional Evidence Records 280 pages 280,000) to his/her own Daegu Bank account (Additional Evidence Records 280,000,000 from February 2014 to January 2018). The fact that the defendant withdraws the sum of KRW 56,90,000 from the victim company’s account from February 2014 to January 2018 (Additional Evidence Record 282,00,000). Even if such claim occurred, it is difficult to believe the defendant’s lawsuit that he/she disposed of his/her own property without undergoing due process such as accounting of the victim company.