1. The part of the judgment below against Defendant B and C shall be reversed.

2. Defendant B and C are not guilty.3. Defendant A and D.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts (occupational embezzlement) is deemed to have been deducted from the monthly wage, unpaid oil price, and below the minimum wage amount that the unpaid taxi commission would have been paid by the victimized Company. Thus, even though Defendant did not intend to embezzled the unpaid taxi commission, the lower court accepted this part of the facts charged and convicted Defendant of the charge. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant A and D’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine is a member of the Dog branch of the Dog branch of the Korea Public Transport Service Trade Union (hereinafter “victim trade union”) and used as a trade union office the tent specified in the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “the instant tent”) to attract electricity owned by the victimized company without the consent of the victimized company. However, this is an inevitable measure for exercising the right of association. Thus, the Defendants’ above act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.

Nevertheless, the court below accepted this part of the facts charged and found the Defendants guilty. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on legitimate acts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

C. Defendant B and C’s assertion of mistake of facts is an executive officer of the superior agency to the trade union of the victimized company, and only visited the instant tent several times in order to encourage the tent of taxi engineers belonging to the victimized company, and did not have committed the theft of electricity in collusion with A and D, the lower court accepted this part of the facts charged and convicted the Defendants. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.