All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the amount deposited in G bank account (hereinafter “the instant account”) of the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) that the Defendants withdrawn by the Defendants was owned by E Management Group, not the ownership of the victim company, without any need for separate settlement with the victim company (hereinafter “the instant account”); and (b) the Defendants’ act does not constitute a crime (misunderstanding the legal doctrine). (c) The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the instant account is in the name of the victim company; (d) under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, barring any special agreement between the financial institution and the contributor to vest in the claim for return of the deposit amount, the deposit owner of the instant account should be deemed the victim company, unless there was a mutual agreement between the G bank and E management body.

The financial assets held in the above account are presumed to be owned by the victim company as the nominal owner, and as such, I did not obtain the consent of the victim company in preparing the withdrawal slips according to the order of the Defendants, and the victim company bears the obligation to return the money deposited in the instant account to the E management unit.

Even if the above claim cannot be seen as naturally attributable to E management body without the court’s attachment of claims or order of the entire amount solely on the ground that such obligation was borne, the Defendants’ assertion on the premise that the money deposited in the instant account was owned by E management body cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.