All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendants applied for false equipment to make a false representation in the past and then the class of the Defendants participated in the crime, thereby causing a change in the form of participation.

Even if the crime was withdrawn from the continued crime

Now, no person can know the overall size of the non-financial fund, but if he was aware of the fact of raising the non-financial fund, it is sufficient to evaluate it as active participation. Second, with respect to the intention of illegal acquisition, D is a market-type public corporation, and applying strict standards in determining the intention of illegal acquisition rather than a general public corporation. Even based on the data submitted in D, it is sufficient to recognize the intention of illegal acquisition by creating a separate non-financial fund, even though it is possible to officially use the funds incurred in the course of operating the company, and even if it is not, it is sufficient to recognize the intention of illegal acquisition

Even if at least, it is necessary to recognize the illegal acquisition intention with respect to the amount under the so-called “value of painting.”

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted all the Defendants of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendants conspired with the officers and employees to use the existing practices for personal purposes, not just based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, but also raised funds in sequence with the officers and employees in order to use them for personal purposes.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants used them for a purpose unrelated to D, or raised the outside fund for the purpose of personal exploitation.

It is insufficient to see that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Defendants did not recognize the Defendants’ public invitation relationship and the intent of unlawful acquisition.

Even if we look at the following circumstances as well as the circumstances acknowledged by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is so argued by the prosecutor.