All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The lower court found the Defendants guilty of embezzlement of KRW 136,58,300 in the name of an incorporated association over 23 occasions, such as the list Nos. 4 through 25, 27, and 27 in the attached Table Nos. 1, 2, 3, 26, 28, and 29 in the judgment below, and found the Defendants not guilty of the reasons.

Accordingly, the Defendant appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or illegality in sentencing, and the prosecutor did not appeal the acquittal part of the reasons.

The judgment of the court below not guilty of the above part on the ground that the part on which the court below found the defendant not guilty was charged for a single comprehensive crime, was exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties because the prosecutor did not appeal, although the part on the charge of embezzlement was judged to be charged for a single crime and the

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, ① the money No. 6 in the list of annexed crimes in the original judgment was used as the operating expenses of Co., Ltd., and the money No. 27 in the net time was concluded with P and performance performance service contract in relation to theO that was received from N and paid performance expenses. Thus, the Defendants do not constitute embezzlement.

(2) The amount equivalent to value-added tax, out of the amount embezzled by the Defendants, shall be excluded from the amount of embezzlement.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The Defendants made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal of this case at the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in its reasoning. In light of the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the Defendants, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The Defendants’ assertion of factual mistake is rejected.

B. Illegal assertion of sentencing.