All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

After January 8, 2013, the defendant requested the J (hereinafter referred to as the "J") to provide funds necessary for the takeover of the company after the fact-finding and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) to the defendant. Since then on January 8, 2013, only mediated the loan of KRW 7 billion from the bond company T on January 11, 2013, and there is no relation with KRW 9 billion and KRW 4 billion loaned from W borrowed from U on the same day, and KRW 1.9 billion additionally loaned from T on January 14, 2013.

The Defendant merely knew of the fact that the certificate of deposit issued by J was provided as security to bond holders, and cannot be deemed to have recognized that the above certificate of deposit was arbitrarily disposed of byO, etc. without any authority.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of the principal who is one of the requirements for the establishment of aiding and abetting.

Even if the defendant was aware of the embezzlement of O, etc.

Even if the defendant did not actively participate in the whole process of embezzlement of the principal offender, there was an act that can be evaluated as an act of aiding and abetting the appearance of the defendant who did not have the identity of the custodian.

Even if it does not constitute a aiding and abetting crime because it cannot be said that there is illegality to constitute a crime.

Although aiding and abetting the Defendant to commit the crime of embezzlement such as O, the Defendant, as described in the foregoing paragraph (1), was involved only in the seven billion won amount loaned from T on January 11, 2013, and thus, the Defendant’s liability should also be limited to the part of the certificate of deposit equivalent to the KRW 7.9 billion, which was offered as security for the above loan.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of aiding and abetting the entire embezzlement crime of O, etc. (total 20.9 billion won) is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

Article 628 of the Commercial Act concerning violations of the Commercial Act of March 10, 2010 is an offense of provisional payment under Article 622 of the same Act as an offense of genuine status.