(b) Occupational embezzlement;

2. (a)(b) D

A For A)

Attorney M, DE (Defendant D) who is a legal entity

1. Examining the reasoning for Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the original judgment based on the reasoning of the original judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the instant public prosecution (excluding the part of innocence) was recognized as guilty on the grounds as stated in the judgment below, and there was no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a common principal offender without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. Examining the reasoning for Defendant D’s appeal in light of the evidence duly adopted by the original judgment based on the reasoning of the original judgment, it is reasonable to impose an additional collection of KRW 25 million on Defendant D on the ground as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the imposition of additional collection, by violating the logical and empirical rules, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim So-young

Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik