All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the public prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles);

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to Defendant A’s occupational embezzlement, the fact that Defendant A executed the victim’s budget with the intent of a single embezzlement, and embezzled the executed budget through G and H. can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to Defendant A’s receipt of property in breach of trust and the receipt of property in breach of trust by Defendant B, it can be acknowledged that Defendant A received the gift of KRW 50 million in return for an implied illegal solicitation from Defendant B. Even if Defendant B actually lent the above money to Defendant A, since Defendant B did not enter into an interest agreement at the time of the lease, it can be acknowledged that Defendant A received the benefit equivalent to the interest.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted all the defendants of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination on Defendant A’s occupational embezzlement

A. The lower court’s determination: (a) based on the following circumstances: (i) the victim’s presentation of the work of G and H to the “2015F” held by the victim; (b) the victim’s change of project cost according to the budgetary situation related to the above F; (c) the victim’s report on the plan of measures following the victim’s closure of the work; (d) the victim’s and H’s conclusion of the “2015F donation agreement” between the victim and H; (e) documentary evidence, such as the content and G of the said agreement; and (g) the tax invoice submitted by the victim to G and H; and (e) the victim paid KRW 8 million each of the maintenance cost of the work; and (b) the payment of the said repair maintenance cost is deemed lawful and valid; and (e) the payment of the said repair maintenance cost is also deemed a reasonable price corresponding to the donation of the work.