The part against the Defendants is reversed in entirety.

Defendant

A, in two and half years of imprisonment, Defendant B.

A. Defendant A(1) of this case’s facts charged, including the part of finding a mistake of facts or finding a mistake of facts (the original conviction) and Paragraph (1) of this case’s facts as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter for convenience), and “Paragraph (1)

In relation to Defendant A, Defendant A is in collusion with Defendant B, and the details of the withdrawal of cash from attached Form 1 (hereinafter referred to as “attached Form 1”).

2) There is no fact that the advance payment of KRW 2,936,042,254, as described above, and further, attached Table 1 (hereinafter “attached Form 2”) is limited to attached Table 2.

D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) with a substantial amount of KRW 1,361,387,392 of the entry

(2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of KRW 1,145,508,110 (212) out of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (3 years of imprisonment) is so unreasonable that the Defendant’s funds were too unreasonable, as it used the company’s funds for expenses such as site management expenses, etc.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the acquittal part of the reasoning of the lower judgment against Defendant A) 1)

B) The background leading up to the occurrence of the crime of occupational embezzlement related to the crime of this case as to the crime of 2 to 4 of the judgment below, and the defendant B and Co-defendant C of the court below (hereinafter referred to as "C").

In full view of the consistent statements, etc. of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment below (hereinafter “paragraphs 2 through 4 of the facts constituting the crime of this case”) is as follows.

In relation to Defendant A, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of all the above facts charged even if at least dolusent intent of embezzlement was recognized.