The judgment below

The guilty part against Defendant A (including the innocent part) and the guilty part against Defendant B.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants is as follows: 1) The Defendants’ grounds for appeal are as follows: (a) misunderstanding the facts concerning the embezzlement of occupational duties; and (b) 230,600,000 won in total from Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of the List of Crimes 1 to set up an agricultural company AF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AF”), thereby purchasing farmland or using it for construction expenses; and (c) the Defendant planned to contribute AF to D (hereinafter “Foundation”) a foundation; thus, the said money constitutes money paid for the foundation.

(2) The sum of KRW 215,696,00, as stated in [Attachment 1] Nos. 67 through 70-1, was withdrawn to avoid the seizure of the Foundation’s account in cash, which is merely an exchange of the existing check, and thereafter deposited it to the account under the name of the Foundation after keeping it in the depository.

(3) Attached Table 1 6,9,19,27,29,34,37,47,41,50,53,56,72, and approximately KRW 16,65,950, in total, for the Foundation, used for the Foundation the amount of 16,65,950, including receipts corresponding thereto.

(4) Around 22,759,750 won, which is the sum total of the amounts of [Attachment 1] Crimes Nos. 12,32,33,49,52, and 54, cannot be found, but is presumed to have been used for the Foundation while keeping receipts and other evidential materials, such as current receipts. The Defendant embezzled only this portion of cash.

It is difficult to see it.

(5) misunderstanding of legal principles: A prosecutor must promptly regard the amount of cash withdrawn from the account of the Foundation as the amount of embezzlement and prosecute the Defendant, and the Defendant must vindicate the specific place of use at the trial stage.

The court below found the defendant guilty on the charge of partially crossing the defendant without any specific proof. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proving the crime of embezzlement, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) Fact-misunderstanding as to the violation of the Building Act, and the misunderstanding of legal principles led by the Defendant.