A. The Defendants (as to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below) 1) The Defendant’s fine for Defendant A and B is the D Building (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that Defendant C committed the crime of occupational embezzlement in collusion with Defendant A and B, even though it cannot be deemed that Defendant C did not have an essential contribution to the crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby having determined that the Defendants C committed the crime of occupational embezzlement in collusion with Defendant A and B. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged was erroneous.

B. Prosecutor 1) A of the lower court’s erroneous determination of facts (as to the portion of acquittal in the judgment of the lower court), sufficiently recognized that there was an intention of unlawful acquisition by the Defendants regarding the appropriation of the attorney’s fees in criminal cases against an individual’s illegal act as public funds, and even though there was no circumstance to find out that there was an exceptional situation where the organization’s interest was in a lawsuit or a special need to respond to a complaint for the sake of an organization’s interest, the lower court determined that the Defendants were not guilty of this part of the facts charged. (2) The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant A, B: each of the fines of one million won, and the fines of three hundred thousand

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendants

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that Defendant A served as the chairperson of the steering committee of the building of this case from August 2006 to November 19, 2014. Defendant B was on August 2006.