The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

M shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than four months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 피고인들의 사실오인 또는 법리오해 주장 1) 피고인들의 차명 임원 급여 횡령의 점(피고인 E의 범죄수익은닉의규제및처벌등에관한법률위반의 점 포함)에 대하여 아래와 같은 이유로 원심은 사실을 오인하거나 법리를 오해하여 이 부분 공소사실을 유죄로 인정하였다. 가) 피해자 소유 재산 부인(피고인들) 특수목적법인(SPC)이 X으로부터 운영자금조로 대출받은 금원의 소유권은 특수목적법인에 귀속되고, 특수목적법인의 예금계좌에서 그 명의상 임원의 계좌로 입금된 금원은 그 계좌 명의자인 임원의 소유이므로, 피고인들이 ㈜X(이하 ‘X’이라 한다) 소유의 돈을 보관하는 자에 해당하지 아니한다.

B) An act of lending funds to a special purpose corporation constitutes a crime of violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act and an act of occupational breach of trust. This part of the facts charged constitutes an act of disposing of property acquired by an act of breach of trust, and constitutes an act ex post facto act. C) Defendant H and L merely have been employed as an employee in charge of loan in X, and did not have a status of managing or keeping the operating funds of a special purpose corporation. (D) As to the embezzlement of Defendant L’s borrowed loan, the lower court convicted Defendant C of this part of the facts charged on the following grounds: (a) on the ground that there was no criminal intent of embezzlement (Defendant C) by denying the criminal intent of embezzlement (Defendant C), the lower court did not have a criminal intent of embezzlement; (b) on the ground that there was an embezzlement of Defendant L

The 240,000,000 won deposited in the Agricultural Cooperative Account of AE, a borrowed borrower, shall be attributed to the ownership of BE as part of the 7,000,000,000 won loaned from X, and the person transferred to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of BE shall not be deemed to have embezzled while the Defendant kept the money owned by X.

3. On Defendant B’s occupational breach of trust.