All appeals filed by A and B and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

However, the prosecutor filed an appeal only with respect to the embezzlement 5 of the above list of crimes, and did not file an appeal with respect to the remainder.

Thus, while the embezzlement section 6-14 of the above crime list 5, along with the embezzlement section of the above crime list 5, was tried at the trial, the prosecutor did not appeal the part of the embezzlement Nos. 6-14, and was exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 1991). As to this part, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is followed, and the decision is not again made at the trial.

Ultimately, the scope of the trial of this court on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against Defendant C is limited to the embezzlement No. 5 of the above crime list.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of [Attachment Table 2 and 14] of the judgment of the court below charged for the embezzlement of the funds of Defendant A and Defendant B as common assertion between Defendant A and Defendant B, Defendant A and Defendant B (hereinafter “L”), since the above Defendants used the said money for the purpose of a company, or withdrawn the said money in the intent to use it with short-term loan loan, and repaid the amount actually withdrawn amount to L, the above Defendants did not have any intent to obtain unlawful acquisition in relation to the execution of the said money.

B. Defendant B’s assertion that he had resigned from the office of representative director on May 11, 2012, the lower judgment corresponding to the above date.