The judgment below

Among them, the part on additional collection against Defendant C and A and the part on conviction against Defendant B and Defendant E.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) Defendant B (the part concerning the crime of re-violation of trust in the judgment of the court below) did not make an illegal solicitation, such as the facts in this part of the facts charged, to Defendant C, the president of the regional housing association (hereinafter “instant association”) or the head of the headquarters thereof, who is the head of the regional housing association.

Of the KRW 418,300,000,00 which the Defendant provided to the Defendant A, KRW 218,300,000 (this is useful part without notifying the instant union by the Defendant A) shall not be deemed to have been acquired by deception by the Defendant A by deceiving the instant union and the Defendant, and shall not be deemed to have been subject to the crime of repeating breach of trust.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on its grounds as stated in its holding. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Defendant E (the part in the crime of embezzlement of occupational duties as indicated in the judgment below) did not recognize the circumstance that Defendant C, D, A, and R would embezzlement the above KRW 220 million as stated in the facts charged, for the convenience of providing convenience to Defendant A at the request of Defendant C, who is the president of the instant association, in the process of executing the service payment (ordinary service payment) to Defendant A, the instant association prepared a false contract with a KRW 220 million, as described in this part of the facts charged, and paid to Defendant A the remainder of KRW 128 million, excluding taxes, out of KRW 220 million, which was paid based on the false contract, and there was no conspiracy with Defendant C, D, A, and R as described in the above facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on its grounds as stated in its holding. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

[The defendant's ground for appeal is that there is a misunderstanding of facts about the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes in the original judgment.