The Defendants are not guilty. 2. Defendant A’s appeal against the lower judgment.

A. As to the judgment of the court of first instance (Defendant A), mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle are subject to the agreement with the victim I, the defendant A has the authority to dispose of the remaining money except the advertising money executed by the above victim's company, so the above defendant cannot be deemed to have the status of a custodian in the crime of embezzlement.

In addition, the above defendant used the above money under the above agreement and did not arbitrarily consume it, and the above defendant's act does not constitute embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the first instance judgment that recognized the crime of embezzlement against the Defendant was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the above defendant (two years of suspended execution in October, and two hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the judgment of the second instance, the Defendants did not know that (i) the passbook and the balance certificate in the name of AD were forged as follows, and there was no conspiracy to commit the instant fraud, but there was an error of misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

㈎ 피고인 A은 AD 명의의 통장이 위조된 것임을 알지 못하였고, 오히려 피해자 T, U에게 AD 명의의 통장 등을 구해줄 의사와 능력이 있었으며, 단지 이후 위 피해자들의 책임으로 인하여 위 통장을 구하지 못하게 된 것일 뿐이므로, 위 피고인이 편취의 범의를 가지고 위 피해자들을 기망하였다고 볼 수 없다.

㈏ 피고인 W은 단지 피해자 T, U로부터 거래실적이 600억 원 이상인 통장을 구해줄 것을 요청받고 이를 다시 피고인 A에게 부탁하였을 뿐이며, 피고인 A이 가지고 온 AD 명의의...