The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the reported data on corporate tax of the victim company, the details of short-term loans to employees of the stockholders in the standard loan comparison table for the year 2015 are not stated, among the reported data on corporate tax of the victim company; and the accounting and taxation of the victim company;

M stated that “The victim company did not deal with the slips, and thus, the representative director’s provisional payment is not confirmed, and as of the end of December, when cash is large or less than the total amount, it entered as a substitute for the provisional payment in the Simsan sheet.” In light of the above, it is clear that the Defendant did not have a claim against the victim company for provisional payment.

In addition, the defendant's intention of unlawful acquisition can be recognized in light of the fact that the defendant did not keep an appropriate account, and that the full amount is transferred to the defendant's personal account immediately after the payment of construction cost is deposited in the victim company's account.

Therefore, although the defendant could fully recognize the crime of occupational embezzlement, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of the victim corporation D (hereinafter “victim company”), and F was in charge of the management of the bank account (G) in the name of “(State) D A”, which is the fund management account, using Internet banking, from around January 1, 2014 to October 31, 2014, and from around October 15, 2015 to February 2016, the Defendant was entrusted with the management of the said company.

On January 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) suspected of embezzlement of F; (b) temporarily suspended transactions with the said account; and (c) was in charge of the management of the company’s funds.

1) On February 1, 2016, the Defendant, in Jongno-gu Seoul, is a new bank account in the name of the Defendant (H) with KRW 27,150,000, out of the funds kept in the new bank account in the name of the said “DA”, a financial management account of the victim company, in Jongno-gu Seoul.