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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service, 1 year of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service, 80 hours of community service) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

B. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (A) Defendant B was not in the custodian’s position with respect to KRW 300 million received from the Victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”).

In addition, as to the above KRW 300 million, there was an agreement between Defendant B and G on the permission of Defendant B to use the remaining money after paying wages to the labor personnel in the above money, the said money was not a specified money.

(B) As used by the Defendant on October 3, 2014, KRW 5 million that the Defendant permitted the use of G as a compensation for the expenses incurred in the process of extinguishing the obligation to pay wages to labor personnel.

(C) 30 million won deposited into the account under the name of K on December 5, 2014, which was borne by H corporation against the Defendant

It is paid 30 million won as repayment for the debt of 30 million won.

(D) Therefore, the Defendant did not constitute embezzlement of KRW 145 million received in G in collusion with Defendant B, as stated in the instant facts charged.

Although the court below found the above facts charged guilty, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on embezzlement, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. (1) Determination of the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts (A) If the Defendant was in the custody status of KRW 300 million received from G, and whether the said KRW 300 million was in a specific usage, in the crime of embezzlement, in collusion with a person holding no status in the crime of embezzlement, the person holding no status should also be held liable for the crime of embezzlement.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, Defendant A was the custodian of the said money.