All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and D related to the U.S. University and the WT (hereinafter “WA”)

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s conviction of Defendant B’s occupational embezzlement and the Defendant D’s exercise of the above investigation document on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

B. Article 13(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act provides that “expenses for facilities and equipment directly necessary for school education” as expenses for school expenses shall be included in expenses for school expenses in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”) concerning U.S. university tuition fees of KRW 6,571,282,00. In full view of Article 29 of the Private School Act and Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, Articles 25 and 36 of the Financial Accounting Rules, the accounts of school juristic persons shall be divided into the accounts of school juristic persons and corporate accounts, and especially revenues of school expenses shall be strictly limited to school accounting, such as transfer to or lending of other accounts due to entrance fees, tuition fees, etc. The budget of school accounting shall be deliberated and executed by the head of the relevant school after consultation with the advisory committee on budget and settlement of accounts of the relevant school, and the head of the relevant school shall have the school juristic person perform the expenses according to the contract.