The judgment below

The part of the defendant A (including the non-guilty part) and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be sentenced to four years of imprisonment;

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Defendant A and E1) No. 1: The Defendants mispercing the facts about the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement and misunderstanding of the legal principles) and mispercing the facts. From October 29, 2008 to February 28, 2017, the Defendants created KRW 7,784,587,957, as shown in the attached Table of the judgment below from October 29 to February 28, 2017 (hereinafter “non-party funds of this case”). However, the non-party funds of this case were jointly withdrawn and managed by AP, and executed for the purpose of the company or used for cash expenses.

B) In the misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendants, while making up the instant funding, used it for the company.

In this case of denying the intention of illegal acquisition, the court below concluded that embezzlement is established only by the act of creating cash-related expenses, which led the defendant to bear de facto burden of proof is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof as to the elements of crime.

2) Point 2: The punishment that the lower court sentenced each of the Defendants (three years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A and four years of suspended sentence for Defendant E: imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six years) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s sentence (a fine of 4 years, fine of 70 million won, additional collection of 40 million won) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

D1) Point 1: The misunderstanding of the facts as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and the misapprehension of the legal principles do not convey the Defendant, through BL, a request to specify a bribe of KRW 50 million on the part of theN.

Even if it is difficult to regard Defendant B as a joint principal offender who conspired to accept bribe with Defendant B and it is found guilty, it is nothing more than a aiding and abetting offender. In contrast, the Defendant demanded BL to take a bribe of KRW 50 million.

Reporting, B, and the crime of acceptance of bribe;

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the joint principal of the crime of bribery acceptance.

2) Point 2: