The conviction part against Defendant A (including the acquittal part for reasons) and Defendant E.

A. Defendant A1) ① As to the part of the embezzlement (2016 Gohap63) that Defendant A solely committed (2016 Gohap63), Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) and the part of the embezzlement (2016 Gohap 63) that Defendant A solely committed, the transfer of the claim to Defendant on January 28, 2015 and May 14, 2015 is valid based on the self-agreement on January 15, 2015. The Defendant’s performance of the obligation based on the Defendant’s preferential right to repayment cannot be deemed as a violation of the duty of trust with the L medical foundation.

In addition, even though there was no resolution by the board of directors on the transfer of one credit, there was no intention to acquire illegal profits since the defendant was entitled to receive KRW 900 million from the L medical foundation. Thus, the defendant's act of spending within the limit is not a crime of embezzlement.

② As to the embezzlement (2016 Gohap63) jointly committed by Defendant A and B, Defendant A did not have conspired with B.

Defendant

With respect to the fraud (2016 Gohap63) committed jointly by A and B, it is difficult to see that Defendant A bears the true obligation according to the intention to pay the nursing expenses in advance before the due date, so it is difficult to see that Defendant A bears the false obligation, and there was no intention to obtain fraud.

③ As to the part on the forgery of private documents and the part on the uttering of the above investigation documents (2016 Gohap 65), since Defendant A has the preferential right to repayment to the L Medical Foundation in accordance with the written agreement on January 15, 2015, it may be deemed that Defendant A had the implied consent or constructive consent of the board of directors regarding the preparation of the minutes of the board of directors.

(4) As to the evasion portion of compulsory execution by the person on November 1, 2013 (2017, 1) (2017, 1), the crime of escape from compulsory execution is not established, since movable property which is an object of compulsory execution is not the property of the defendant as a debtor.

⑤ On the part of embezzlement against the victim M medical foundation (2017 high 23), Defendant E borrowed KRW 250 million from MF in the name of M medical foundation, but the actual debtor is Defendant E-BS, and thus, the said money.