1. As to the First Ground of Appeal for Attorney Kim Yong-ran

According to Article 54 of the Building Act, in the case of a juristic person, its representative is the owner's theory, but according to the first instance judgment, the defendant, the president of the school juristic person, and co-defendant in collusion with the court of first instance, the president of the school juristic person, and co-defendant of the court of first instance, constructed the building in the urban planning area without permission of the authority, and thus the decision of the court below that maintained the defendant's interest as co-principal with the court of first instance and the court of first instance is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 54 of the Building Act, such as the theory of lawsuit

2. As to the grounds of appeal by attorney Kim Jong-chul and the remaining grounds of appeal by attorney Kim Yong-chul

According to the evidence of the first instance judgment, it is sufficient to recognize the defendant's embezzlement and occupational embezzlement, and it is not possible to find any violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or any misapprehension of the legal principles, so all arguments shall not be employed.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)