A. Defendants 1 and 1. A of the facts stated in the judgment of the court below.

1) As to the crime of occupational embezzlement, Defendant A, a victim foundation E (hereinafter “victim foundation”) at the time.

(B) The judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of this part of the crime committed against Defendant A, even though he did not constitute embezzlement because he did not constitute embezzlement since he paid interest on the loan of Defendant A through prior consultation with M, and even though he did not have the intention of embezzlement, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment).

2) As to the crime of occupational breach of trust, all of the victim corporation's investment funds at the time when they were returned to M without prior approval of the board of directors, and the defendant A returned the investment funds at the request of the board of directors and entered M and was reported to the board of directors later, and thus, the act of occupational breach of trust does not constitute the act of occupational breach of trust, and even if the defendant did not have intention to commit the crime of occupational breach of trust, the court below found the defendant A guilty of this part of the crime of occupational breach of trust, which

With respect to the crime of business suspension under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (5), Defendant B managed the funds of the victim corporation using multiple passbooks, such as the personal passbook, etc. under the understanding of Co-Defendant B and M, and returned the difference to the victim corporation on November 201, 2010, and thus, it does not constitute embezzlement, and the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of this part of the crime of occupational embezzlement as to the crime of occupational embezzlement under Article 1.b.4 of the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts of embezzlement.