All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles

The actual owner or manager of the instant case was not the actual owner or manager, but did not participate in the management. On the other hand, among the embezzlements described in this part of the facts charged, about KRW 9 billion was the amount that Defendant A borrowed and repaid by Defendant A, and the remainder of the money is not related to Defendant A, but can not be regarded as embezzlement as not only money paid according to transaction relations with T, U, Do, BD, and BE. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (three years of suspension of execution, four years of suspension of execution, community service, 240 hours) against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Among the facts charged on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) against the Defendants by the public prosecutor, there is a difference between the reported amount on the profit and loss statement and the actual personnel expenses paid, and the credibility of the Defendant B and M’s respective statements made by each of the Defendants B and M, which made up the processed personnel expenses unsatisfy. As long as the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the above facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, and thereby making a substantial judgment on the remaining violation of

Article 361-5 subparag. 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "when there exists any reason to believe that the amount of punishment is unreasonable," and Article 155 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that "when there is any reason to believe that the amount of punishment is unfair," the prosecutor shall clearly state the grounds for appeal and the answer in the statement of grounds for appeal or reply." Thus, the appeal shall be filed by the court of first instance on the date of the appeal.