All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the misapprehension of the legal principle, Defendant A (a) is a person who is in a molecule position, and Defendant A may be punished as a joint principal offender in the crime of embezzlement against Defendant B.

Defendant B, a major shareholder of Defendant I, a victimized company, only prepared a job for Defendant A to borrow money normally from the victimized Company, and there was no intention to acquire illegal profits.

Since the 800 million won, which is the amount of damage, belongs to the defendant A immediately and the defendant A uses and benefits all, there is no room for embezzlement against the defendant B.

In addition, as long as the injured company holds a loan claim amounting to KRW 80 million against Defendant A and the claim remains as the assets of the victimized company, Defendant B did not have the intention of unlawful acquisition, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B engaged in embezzlement.

Defendant

There was no bid with B.

Therefore, Defendant A’s act is not established for embezzlement.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, Defendant B lent to Defendant A before the preceding day.

In order to take measures to recover KRW 300 million, the injured company requested the Defendant to lend KRW 80 million to the Defendant A, and the game was gambling with the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 300 million. As such, there was no intention of embezzlement or intent of illegal acquisition that had been intended to arbitrarily dispose of the money of the victimized company.

Since the damaged company entered into a contract of consumption lending and lending with Defendant A effectively, it cannot be viewed as embezzlement since it can be viewed as a civil tool.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles [Abstract: the Defendants’ motive and motive for withdrawing the funds of the victimized company of this case.