1. The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant (including the part not guilty of the reasoning) shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) The developments leading up to the creation of the funds for occupational embezzlement are different from those recognized by the lower court (Provided, That the amount of occupational embezzlement is not KRW 156,683,250 as recognized by the lower court, but KRW 125,782,00 as recognized by the lower court.

2) The Defendant misunderstanding that there was a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes related to C (Bribery) related to the crime is merely a victim who was threatened by C, and there was no illegal solicitation from F.

F has paid money to C to obtain C regardless of the defendant's duties.

The Defendant, in collusion with C, did not cause F to pay C money.

B) In the event that misunderstanding C is a third party in the crime of accepting a third party bribe, C, a third party in the legal doctrine, cannot be a joint principal offender.

Even if not,

However, Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “The Aggravated Punishment Act of Specific Crimes”) cannot be applied to a bribe amount because the Defendant, around April 2002, had been prosecuted and completed the statute of limitations since he/she had not been aware of the amount of the bribe at the time, and the amount of the bribe was finally determined.

B. Defendant C1) In fact, Defendant C1 did not attract the Defendant to commit a crime with B, Party B did not receive an illegal solicitation from F, and Party F only paid money to receive the Defendant’s assistance irrespective of his/her duties.

2) If the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine constitutes a third party of the crime of accepting a third party bribe, the Defendant, a third party under the legal doctrine, cannot be a joint principal offender.

(c)

Defendant

A1) The background leading up to the creation of funds for occupational embezzlement related to the S Livestock Cooperative is different from that recognized by the lower court.

Since the defendant simply delivered money and B used all the money created by the method as stated in the judgment of the court below for S stables, there is an intention to obtain unlawful profits from the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

It is not so.

(b)if any;