The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A and C1’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (Defendant A and C)’s misunderstanding of the acceptance of property in breach of trust and the acceptance of property in breach of trust (Defendant A and C), Defendant A merely performed the work of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) and received benefits in return, and did not receive unjust solicitation from H.

B) As to the occupational embezzlement (defendant C), Defendant C deposited the money withdrawn from H’s account into the personal account, but all of them used for H, and did not have embezzled personally.

2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A)’s improper sentencing (the sentence of imprisonment for six months and suspension of execution for two years, additional collection of KRW 54 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant D on the fact that Defendant D was not guilty, despite the prosecutor's (defendant D) found Defendant D's non-guilty facts, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. As to the judgment on the violation of trust and the violation of trust (defendant A and C), the above Defendants asserted the same as the allegations in this part of the appeal, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail under the title "the judgment on the assertion of Defendant A and his defense counsel (including the judgment on the assertion of Defendant B and C's breach of trust)" in the judgment.

In light of the facts and circumstances stated by the court below in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the above defendants.

Therefore, the above defendants' above assertion is without merit.

B. Determination of the crime of occupational embezzlement (Defendant C) as to the crime of embezzlement (Defendant C) has the burden of proving the intention of unlawful acquisition. Thus, even if the purpose of money is determined abstractly, the specific purpose, location, market price, etc. of use is determined.