A. Defendant A1) The Co., Ltd., the telegraph of the company causing misunderstanding of facts borrowed KRW 70 million from the O Co., Ltd., and the representative director of the O Co., Ltd., who failed to make timely payments, had a duty to pay KRW 70 million to the O Co., Ltd., and the Defendant, who was an actual owner of L and victimized Co., Ltd., was liable to pay KRW 70 million to K with the funds of the company actually damaged by the obligor in the criminal trial process. Thus, there was no intention of embezzlement. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of KRW 1 million, which was sentenced to unfair sentencing, is unreasonable.

B. According to the records of this case, even if Defendant B was served on August 16, 2018, Defendant B failed to file the statement of grounds for appeal within the lawful period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal, and the petition of appeal does not contain any grounds for appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the records, the grounds for ex officio investigation cannot be found.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a decision to dismiss an appeal filed by a defendant B should be made. However, as long as a judgment is rendered on an appeal filed by a defendant A, the dismissal of appeal is not separately decided, and a judgment should be

In such a case, the appeal is not unlawful even if it is dismissed by judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 69Do143 delivered on May 27, 1969, etc.). 2. As to Defendant A’s appeal

A. The Defendant asserted that the mistake of facts was similar to the grounds for appeal in the lower court. Accordingly, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the assertion of mistake of facts in detail from No. 2, 19 to No. 3, 14.