The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A, B, C, and D and the part against Defendant F (including the part not guilty for the reason).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, C, and D1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant A, B, and C did not dispute only the crime of occupational embezzlement on the grounds of appeal, and did not dispute the crime of occupational embezzlement.

A) The instant money, which is the subject of the ownership of the money received from the supplier, was acquired from the Defendant Company R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “R”) other than the Defendant Company A, B, C, and D (hereinafter “A, etc.”), and thus, Defendant A, etc. does not constitute a crime of taking property in breach of trust.

Tobacco pots, which have been supplied with raw materials manufactured

U.S. Co., Ltd., S., V., and T. (hereinafter “supply company”), and the subject of ownership of money received from each company is R corporation.

Defendant

C, D received rebates from a personal account with public funds and stored, managed, and operated as a R's extra loan.

Since the supplier used the money that the supplier used for R's funds in the actual management and custody of R's funds, it cannot be evaluated that Defendant A, etc. acquired and obtained it, and it does not constitute a crime of taking property in breach of trust, separate from occupational embezzlement.

Before the establishment of the crime of taking property or property in breach of trust in the criminal law at the time, the defendants' acquisition of property or property benefits does not constitute the crime of taking property in breach of trust.

(2) On February 14, 2017, Defendant A et al. asserted that the defense counsel’s written opinion on February 14, 2017, regarding the existence of illegal solicitation: (i) the prime contractor (KT&&G) exercised the substantial authority to determine the quantity and price of the supplied goods between R and the supplier; (ii) the primary supplier’s strict control over the raw material supplier’s source, supply price, supply quantity, contract terms, etc. in relation to the supply and demand of raw materials; and (iii) the R’s supply price is linked to the R’s manufacture cost (which is based on the raw material price and the volume).