The conviction part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B shall be reversed in entirety.

Defendant

A.

A. From the judgment of the court below of conviction against Defendant A, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as set forth below in the judgment of conviction against Defendant A among the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (A) Each occupational embezzlement against the victim P, Q, R, S, T, U, and V among the facts charged against Defendant A, the court below convicted Defendant A of each occupational embezzlement against the victim P, Q, R, S, T, U, and V among the facts charged against Defendant A, but the above victims consented to the management of personnel expenses, etc. deposited in their own accounts.

In addition, in light of the fact that Defendant A used the money withdrawn from the account of the above victims for laboratory operation expenses and tuition support, there was no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition from Defendant A.

Therefore, the crime of occupational embezzlement is not established against this part of the facts charged.

② Even if the crime of occupational embezzlement is established regarding this part of the facts charged, the victim Q received a refund of his passbook and cash card from Defendant A around December 2015 and managed personnel expenses, etc. from January 2016, and thus, the money withdrawn after January 2016 from the account of the victim Q should be excluded from the amount of embezzlement.

B) Fraud: ① Costs for purchasing research equipment necessary for Defendant A to carry out research tasks, costs for repairing equipment, and costs for purchasing various expendable goods, etc., should be subsidized by the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation for the Victims’ Korea University; however, in fact, the Defendant did not provide adequate support therefor. Therefore, the Defendant AB (hereinafter referred to as “AB”) is limited to the Defendant Company AB (hereinafter referred to as “AB”) which had accepted flat research equipment, such as the facts charged in this part.

The research fund is paid by submitting a false statement of transaction at the request of Defendant B, who is the representative director of the Council, to the Foundation for Industry-Academic Cooperation for Victims.