All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In relation to the crime of embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the judgment of the court below which recognized the weight of double materials embezzled by Defendant B from the victimized company based on the abstract calculation method as the prosecutor alleged by Defendant B is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence. 2) The sentence of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the original judgment, Defendant B also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected Defendant B’s assertion in detail under the title “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the said judgment. In line with the records, the lower court’s determination is justified, and it cannot be said that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and therefore, Defendant B’s allegation in this part is without merit.

B. The crime of this case against the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is committed in collusion with the Defendants to arbitrarily cut off the excess materials owned by the victimized Company and divide the disposal price, and it is against the trust of the victimized Company by taking advantage of the period, frequency, method, and scale of damage, etc. of the crime by repeatedly and repeatedly committing the crime through the method of issuing the false slips, and the amount of damage was 1.2 billion won in total. Defendant A, as an agent of the purchasing team of the victimized Company, has a duty to faithfully preserve and manage the company’s property. However, even though the above duty was performed, Defendant A violated the trust of the victimized Company by creating significant damage to the victimized Company by combining with Defendant B.