The judgment below

Among them, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against Defendant A.

I. The summary of the grounds for appeal in detail shall be described and examined by each issue.

1. Grounds for appeal concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against Defendant A;

A. The lower court determined that the amount of the president’s business activity expenses delivered by U Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”) to Defendant A, unlike the facts charged, was KRW 7.588 billion. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on non-defluence and by misapprehending the legal principles on the judgment itself, or by violating the rules of evidence.

The lower court determined that the Defendant A did not have any error of 50,000 dollars around June 2005, which was erroneous in matters of mistake of facts and violation of the rules of evidence.

나. 피고인 A ⑴ 사실오인 및 법리오해 ㈎ 피고인 A이 X 등 부하직원들로부터 받은 외화가 50만 달러에 이르는지에 관한 증거가 부족하고, 피고인 A은 50만 달러를 리비아 대수로 공사 관련자들에 대한 로비 등 회사를 위하여 사용하였는바 이를 횡령하였다

As such, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of embezzlement or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

In addition, unlike the facts charged that the judgment of the court below was used for the purpose of personal affairs of Libybya for the public and the people related to the construction in the number of Libya, it was judged that all used for the personal purpose in the reason of the judgment. There is no evidence as to the violation of law and the use for the personal purpose.

㈏ 피고인 A은 U 각 지사로부터 조성된 부외자금을 전달받을 때 개인적으로 착복할 의사는 없었으므로, 이를 인정한 원심은 사실을 오인하였고 양형에도 중대한 영향을 미쳤다.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on Defendant A (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The public prosecutor's offering of a bribe to Defendant A, and against Defendant B.