All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) The lower court acquitted the Defendants on this part of the facts charged, although the Defendants’ misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine were the act of withdrawing KRW 9,50,000 in cash from the victim’s well-sustaining savings bank’s cash payment machines managed by the victim’s savings bank constituted larceny.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the establishment of larceny, or by misapprehending the fact.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: 5 years of imprisonment; Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, and confiscation) is too uneasible.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. The additional prosecutor of the facts charged in this case reveals that among the facts charged in this case, the part of the defendants' withdrawal of KRW 9,50,000 in cash at the cash payment period with the debit card taken by D constitutes "illegal use" under Article 70 (1) 4 of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business, and thus, the defendants should be punished as a crime of violating the Act on Special Credit Financial Business by applying the aforementioned provision, while maintaining the argument that the defendants should be punished as a crime of violating the Act on Special Credit Financial Business. In addition, Article 329, Article 30 of the Criminal Act applies to the name of the crime in this part of this case, and Article 3-3 of the Criminal Act

An application for amendment to a bill of amendment was filed to add the same facts as stated in the paragraph, and this court permitted it, which was added to the judgment.

However, the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the existing facts charged (the primary facts charged in the deliberation of the political party) and the wrongful assertion of sentencing between both parties are still subject to the adjudication of this court. Thus, the following arguments and the ancillary facts charged in the trial should be examined in turn.

3. Of the grounds for appeal, the Prosecutor’s mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine and the ancillary facts added in the trial are added to the Prosecutor’s mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine among the grounds for appeal.