All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, received USD 38,732,994, in total, from November 22, 2007 to May 19, 2008, as construction price for the O corporation B (hereinafter “B”)’s large shareholder interest representative director, Defendant A, who is the Defendant Company B’s major shareholder, under the agreement with the EU P, and received USD 38,732,994.

AU directed and embezzled B’s funds by depositing USD 24,760,430 among them into a deposit account in the name of Defendant A, an individual company, I, or L corporation, as shown in the judgment of the court below, as shown in (1) through (6) of the daily list of crimes in the attached Form No. 1 to 6.

The decision was determined.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts by violating the law of evidence and logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of free conviction, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the said judgment, or by misapprehending the legal principles on res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment, presumption of innocence, principle of court-oriented principle, and rule of exclusion from evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds inconsistent and omission of judgment, etc.

subsection (b) of this section.

2. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that convicted Defendant A of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (Embezzlement) that embezzled B’s funds using “T,” a personal entrepreneur, and embezzled the funds of M&A by pretending to short-term loans, etc., among the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is erroneous or erroneous as to the intention of embezzlement or unlawful acquisition, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.