The judgment below

Among the defendant A's BO contracts, the forgery of private documents is required.

1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed)

A. The crime of embezzlement is established in the event that, with respect to the embezzlement of Company C’s funds by a limited liability company (hereinafter “C”), a person executes an entrusted fund, the use or purpose of which is strictly limited, and uses funds for purposes other than the limited purpose.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that Defendant A’s use of the loan of this case as the purchase price of this case in the name of CV, its wife, after receiving KRW 320 million from the original C to use it as the lease deposit for the accommodation of employees. Even if the lease contract of this case was concluded between CV and C after it, it is merely a situation after using the above KRW 320 million for the original purpose other than the original purpose, and it is difficult to view that Defendant C consented to the use of the funds necessary for the establishment of a new airline, which may be its competition company, from the company’s funds. Thus, Defendant A’s use of the loan of this case in relation to the increase of lease deposit for the Korean branch office of Korea constitutes embezzlement.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules,

B. As to the crime of occupational breach of trust, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, C.