The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and two years, Defendant C, and Defendant D shall be punished, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, C, and D1 were to have a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and Defendant A, C, and D had the intent to use them for the business purpose of the victim E Co., Ltd., and all of the aforementioned funds were disbursed in order to carry out the projects being promoted by the victim company.

As such, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, inasmuch as it cannot be recognized that the Defendants had the intent of unlawful acquisition, and thus, even though the facts charged in this case should be pronounced not guilty, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that the Defendants used funds for personal purposes on the premise that the Defendants

2) The sentence that the lower court rendered unfair sentencing (Defendant A: 1 year of suspended sentence, 2 years of community service, 160 hours of community service, Defendant C, and D: each fine of KRW 15 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 180,100,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of legal principles or mistake of the facts of Defendant A, C, and D

A. In order to raise funds to be used for personal purposes by a person who keeps and manages money, etc. for another person’s related legal doctrine, the act of entering into a construction contract with a construction business operator, etc. at an excessive amount of money, thereby making a prior agreement with the construction business operator to enter into the construction contract and receiving part of the construction cost overpaid therefrom from the construction business operator constitutes embezzlement in relation to the other person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do7112, Oct. 12, 2007; 2010Do3399, May 27, 2010; 2013Do13444, Dec. 10, 2015). Furthermore, even if the Defendant acknowledged that the Defendant used the company’s secret funds, the act of taking part of the construction cost that was overpaid and used on behalf of the company constitutes embezzlement.

In the event of denying the existence of an illegal acquisition intent, the use of the non-financial expense claimed by the defendant is ordinarily generated in the course of the company's operation.