Part concerning Defendant C and E shall be reversed.

Defendant

C Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and Defendant E.

A. The prosecutor's assertion of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles regarding "the point of joint breach of trust acceptance of defendant A and B" was delivered the money of this case to the defendant Eul with the intention of offering rebates to the defendant Eul, and even if the money received by the defendant Eul again was delivered to the defendant Eul with the same intention, it is merely an ex post facto disposal act of the money acquired as breach of trust acceptance act. In addition, although the court below judged that the defendant Eul used the money received from the defendant Eul for the business expenses of the company as alleged, it is difficult to view that it was normally used for the company in light of the statements of the related persons, even if it was used for the company, it does not affect the crime of breach of trust acceptance which was already established since it was merely a consumption of the money acquired as a breach of trust acceptance, and it did not affect the crime of violation of trust acceptance. Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to this part by reliance only on the defendant's statement of the defendant Eul, but it was not clear that the defendant Eul paid to the defendant Eul's statement to the defendant 2000.

Defendant B made a clear statement, and Defendant B made a confession that he received money from E several times at the investigative agency around that time, and there are no circumstances to suspect the credibility of such confession, and Defendant B made a certain amount of rebates to a person in charge of the J continuously around that time in light of the situation where E offered a certain amount of rebates to the person in charge of the J.