All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the defendant

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the following grounds: (a) the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) due to the creation of approximately KRW 3850,000 for non-financing

In other words, the Defendant, the representative director of J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”), was reported by the head of the Civil Works Headquarters L of the same company to raise funds for the offering of rebates to the ordering entity of the Berne Highway (hereinafter “instant Highway”), and approved the plan.

② Even if the Defendant was unaware of the detailed portion of the act of raising the above funds, the Defendant may be able to recognize functional control over the act through substantial contribution by generally recognizing and approving it. As such, the Defendant may be able to recognize the responsibility of the joint principal offender for the crime of embezzlement by raising the above funds.

2) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation by violating logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the requirements for establishing joint principal offenders of public offering, or by violating the principle of court-oriented

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the following grounds.

In other words, the Defendant ordered the N of the site site of the Highway Corporation to select a specific company that P arranged as a subcontractor.

② Even if the Defendant was unaware of the detailed scope of interference with bidding, it is possible to recognize functional control through substantial contribution by generally recognizing and instructing the functional control over the functional act through substantial contribution. As such, the Defendant’s liability for joint principal offenders committing the crime of interference with bidding may be recognized.

2) The lower judgment.