All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the embezzlement of occupational embezzlement that embezzlements money by registering Defendant A as an employee; (b) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the embezzlement by the Defendant, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant: (c) falsely registering C and B as an employee of Geumcheon-gu Q Q (hereinafter “ Q”) of the elderly’s sanatorium (hereinafter “ Q”) on December 5, 2013 and December 31, 2013; and (d) conspired and did not participate in the embezzlement by remitting KRW 2,241,840,00

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of the statement of C with no credibility is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

The misunderstanding of the facts of occupational embezzlement that embezzlements money by means of receiving a refund of the difference after paying the price of food materials, and misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the embezzlement, and the payment by misunderstanding B from January 2014 to June 2014 to S of a social welfare foundationO (hereinafter “O”) of the total amount of KRW 27 million after re-returning the price of food materials and paying it to X, which was entrusted by O, was operated by Geumcheon-gu.

Since part of the amount borrowed from X was repaid to raise funds necessary for the operation of Q, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant embezzled the amount, and there is no intention to acquire the Defendant’s embezzlement or unlawful acquisition.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

When considering all the factors of sentencing against the illegal defendant, the sentence (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Defendant

E: Taking into account all the elements of sentencing against the defendant, including the fact that the defendant was not actively demanding payment of KRW 28 million as stated in the original judgment, and that the above amount was fully returned to theO of a social welfare foundation.