B The appeal filed by the Prosecutor and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor are all dismissed.

A. Defendant B (1) In the course of committing the crime of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (with respect to occupational embezzlement), Defendant B’s trial money is the victim FF corporation (hereinafter “victim F corporation”).

(2) Defendant B, who was not the representative director in the name of the victimized Company, ordered K to return the lease deposit with the funds of the victimized Company, received a report from K and accepted the above contents, and there was no benefit from Defendant B. Therefore, the lower court found Defendant B guilty on the ground that Defendant B embezzled the funds of the victimized Company or did not have an intent to obtain illegal acquisition. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles. (2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles. (3) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles. (4) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which the lower court sentenced Defendant B to the Defendant

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes)

(2) The lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged, even if the Defendants were fully aware of the criminal intent of breach of trust, on the ground that the establishment of the Defendant was ordered to pay the inheritance tax of Defendant A, one shareholder of the victimized company, and thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine. (2) The

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant B also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the lower court’s decision on this point is consistent with its reasoning: Provided, That the lower court’s five pages is the