Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the guilty part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court below 2 and 3 shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s judgment (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) ① On January 31, 2013, the AJ, the representative director of the DA, was delegated by the AA of the representative director of the K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) of the K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant building”) with the management of Lullet building (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the first floor of the instant building at KRW 300 million. The Defendant was delegated by the AJ around July 8, 2013 the right to lease and parking, cleaning and security service for the first floor below the instant building.

Therefore, the Defendant has the right to possess the building of this case.

Trusted.

② On the part of Defendant B, the office manager of the law firm, “The right to occupy the building in question is duly delegated by the right to manage the 1st floor and the underground floor of the building in question, to guard expenses, and clean-up services, and thus, is entitled to occupy the building in question.”

Trusted.

③ At the time of the instant case, the Defendant reported the instant case to the competent police station, and complied with the instructions given by the police officer in charge.

In light of the above circumstances, the defendant committed a violation of the Punishment Act (joint residential intrusion) and a violation of special structures such as obstruction of business, intrusion of buildings, violence, etc. (joint residential intrusion).

shall not be deemed to exist.

B) The lower court’s judgment (misunderstanding of facts) ① in relation to the crime of occupational embezzlement: (a) the Defendant received approximately KRW 41.4 million from the account in the name of BP; (b) however, upon receiving a request from the Defendant BI to return it thereafter, the Defendant transferred the remainder of KRW 36.6 million, excluding the Defendant’s non-performance of duties, to the CN’s account known to the Defendant; (c) there was no embezzlement act; and (d) there was no conspiracy with the Defendant on the part of the Defendant.

2. In relation to fraud, money is not to be issued by Defendant BI for the purpose of fraud.