The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant A purchased approximately KRW 4,246 square meters ( approximately 1,284 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”) of the Seo-gu Incheon International Association, J, K, K, L, M for the victim D (hereinafter “victim D”) and paid KRW 128,40,000 to G and H, a seller, for the purchase of approximately KRW 128,40,000,000,000 for capital gains tax equivalent to KRW 38,000,000,000,000,000 won, not for the seller’s increase, but for the purchase of the instant land ( KRW 2,10,00,000 per square year).

Defendant

A In the court below that recognized that embezzlement of KRW 128,40,000,000 of the victim union was made, there is an error of mistake of facts.

B) Defendant A’s return of KRW 380,000,000,000,000 paid to Defendant B out of the money paid from Defendant A as the purchase price of the instant land was the authorization cost or the contingent remuneration paid to Defendant B with respect to the permission to build a warehouse on the instant land under the name of the victim’s association. Defendant A did not have an intention or an intention to acquire unlawful acquisition with respect to embezzlement of the money of the victim’s association regarding the payment of KRW 220,000,000 to Defendant A. The lower court recognized that Defendant A embezzled the money of KRW 22,200,000,000 to the victim’s association. 2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles, which found that Defendant A embezzled the money of KRW 222,00,000 to

B. Although the role of Defendant B contributed to obtaining permission to construct a warehouse on the instant land under the name of the victim association was not yet achieved, Defendant B received an excessive amount of KRW 220 million through N, the seat of Defendant A, who is not the victim association, instead of the victim association. Defendant B received a receipt on January 11, 2016 that he was paid KRW 380 million from the victim association as the expenses for authorization and permission.