A. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) As to the crime of this case, there was no conspiracy of occupational embezzlement with the above defendant B; (b) the money received from the above B was paid as the repayment of loan obligations owed by the union; and (c) since the employee H was aware of the union’s ordinary loan repayment and the payment of goods, it was not possible to know at all the source of the money of the union’s employee H at the time; and therefore, the defendant A did not have a criminal intent of occupational embezzlement.

(2) Regarding injury: Defendant A shall not have the face of a victim B as shown in the facts charged.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the act of occupational embezzlement, the following facts are as follows: (i) the ordinary victim FF association (hereinafter “F”) provided feed from G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) and continued to engage in the transaction of supplying feed in the manner of paying the price; (ii) Defendant B, who was operating GY, borrowed KRW 30 million from F around March 2002. In this case, Defendant A and Nonindicted Co., Ltd., jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations; (iii) the above Defendant B was unable to repay the above loan obligations; (iv) requested the return of the above loan to Defendant A, a joint and several surety; (iv) the Defendant FF’s demand to pay KRW 40 million to G Co., Ltd.; and (v) the Defendant C had to pay KRW 40 million in cash at the time of cash transfer; and (v) the Defendant C had to pay KRW 160 million in the name of H’s account.