The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, victim AP center and its affiliated corporations operated by the defendant are not re-facilities for the aged under the Welfare of the Aged Act, but long-term medical care institutions established under the Protection of Long-Term Care for the Aged Act.

Since a long-term medical care institution is not a social welfare facility, the financial accounting rules of social welfare facility do not apply.

Therefore, medical care benefits paid by the National Health Insurance Corporation to the victim AP center is not money entrusted because the purpose or purpose is limited.

On the other premise than this, the court below recognized the defendant's intent to obtain unlawful acquisition and found the defendant guilty of embezzlement on duty.

B. The punishment of the lower court is heavy.

2. Determination

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) A stock company is an independent right independent of its shareholders, and its understanding is not necessarily consistent. Thus, if a shareholder or representative director voluntarily disposed of the company’s property for private purposes, such as offering it as collateral for a third party’s financing, then the company cannot be exempted from liability for embezzlement regardless of whether there was a resolution by the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors on the disposition.

In addition, the intention of illegal acquisition in embezzlement is called the intention of illegal acquisition.

It is difficult to view that the victim AP center is a long-term medical care institution that is established under the Act on the Protection of Long-Term Care for the Aged, and the financial rules of social welfare facilities are not applied to the long-term medical care institution, so it is difficult to view that the victim's money received from the Health Insurance Service is specified for the purpose of its use, even if there is an intention to return, compensate, or preserve the property of another person in violation of his/her duties, such as his/her own property, and to return, compensate, or preserve it later (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3045, Aug. 19, 2005).