Part 1 and 3 of the judgment (the crime of occupational embezzlement and bribe acceptance) shall be reversed.

Defendant .

A. Defendant 1) Part 2 (1) of the judgment of the court below as to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) Part 2 (1) of the judgment of the court below was the main reason why the defendant changed his position to the office of the president of the HH in the light of May 2013. The main reason was not to put the member of the National Assembly AD I market campaign, but to focus on the apartment execution project of BI (State) that the defendant has promoted before several years (the above apartment execution project, which the defendant promoted, was to enter into a land trust contract with the Korea Asset Trust on April 8, 2013, and the same year.

4. 17. 17. Around May of the same year, after the conclusion of a construction contract with the CO and the selection of a supervisory service company, etc. (2) The Defendant explain the above circumstances to the J around May 2013, and only intends to have H affairs.

However, the J has received various business affairs (the conclusion of a lease agreement with the hotel with a view to the revitalization of the PH and the attraction of CB) planning and promotion in the course of the H H president's office from the Defendant as an adviser and requested it to be continuously conducted and completed, and then, it has been released from the office of the H president of the HU in the KU and used it as an adviser of the LU market from May 2013 to July 2014, and in return, it has performed the above business affairs as an advisor of the LU and the corporation card in the judgment of the court below [the corporate card of this case, other than the corporate card which the Defendant has already used and returned to the former; hereinafter referred to as the "corporation card of this case").

Therefore, the corporate card of this case was paid as part of the advisory fee or as the expense for business promotion, and it was not paid as political funds as stated in this part of the facts charged.

[The lower court, as part of the Defendant’s restructuring pursuant to the Defendant’s proposal, paid only advisory fees of KRW 200 to KRW 3 million per month to Y, AA, W, X, and Z, which opened with the Defendant as an adviser of the H, around May 2013, and returned the corporate card en bloc, and paid a new corporate card.