All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of the illegal acquisition intent, the Defendants paid the attorney’s fee for the benefit of H apartment building prosperity, and there was no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition.

(2) The custodian status or joint principal offender Defendant B, C, D, and E are merely those approved by the resolution of expenditure at the board of directors at the board of directors. Defendant A merely executed the resolution of the board of directors at the board of directors of the commercial building as the manager of the commercial building. As such, Defendant A is not only in the position of keeping the operating expenses of the commercial building but also in the position of allowing or executing the expenditure. It does not constitute a joint principal offender for embezzlement.

B. The sentence against the Defendants (a fine of KRW 1 million is imposed on Defendant A, Defendant B, and C: each of the fines of KRW 500,000,000 for Defendant D, Defendant D: fine of KRW 300,000 for Defendant A, Defendant E: fine of KRW 500,000 for Defendant F, and fine of KRW 1 million for Defendant F) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Review of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court reveals the following facts.

(1) Defendant F is the chairman of H apartment shopping mall (hereinafter “H apartment shopping mall”) and Defendant B, C, D, and E are officers of the prosperity conference, and Defendant A is the managing director of the shopping mall.

(2) On the charge of embezzlement, Defendant F and A were investigated by the Seoul East-gu District Prosecutors’ Office on the charge of embezzlement of the operation expenses of the prosperity conference by using the Defendant F’s fine payment and the preparation of a complaint, etc., upon the complaint of K, who is a member of the prosperity conference around 2015.

(3) On May 14, 2015, at an executive meeting of the prosperity conference held on May 14, 2015, Defendant F, B, C, D, and E resolved by unanimous consent to disburse the operating expenses of the prosperity conference in appointing Defendant F and A’s defense counsel.

(4) On May 20, 2015, Defendant F and A appointed a new Seoul Law Firm as a defense counsel. A around that time, Defendant F, A, as the president of the prosperity Association, and the director of the management office, approved the approval and paid KRW 500,000,000 operating expenses of the prosperity as the fee.

(v).