Part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B and Defendant A and the part of the acquittal.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to Articles 6(3) and 10(2) of the entrustment contract of this case concerning the mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the occupational embezzlement (1) of Defendant B (the part of the crime of occupational embezzlement), G deposited KRW 100 million with the victim even if the ownership of the medical device, etc. of this case belongs to the victim, but G deposited with the victim, even though the ownership of the medical device, etc. of this case belongs to the victim, G did not have any intention of unlawful acquisition. However, the victim could only return the deposit after deducting KRW 86,037,00 (28,360,50,500,576,500) from the deposit money of this case. Thus, there was no intention of unlawful acquisition.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

(2) With regard to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.), the Defendant took the attitude of the victim K who had been in order to take over and take over the instant convalescent hospital, and his conduct appears to inflict harm on the Defendant, and the above hospital was occupied by the above K, etc., and the Defendant was sent to the instant convalescent hospital to defend himself and his employees. As such, the Defendant’s act in this case constitutes excessive self-defense or excessive defense exceeding the extent of self-defense.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

(3) As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective violence with a deadly weapon, etc.), the Defendant had a gas gun emitted once to defend himself/herself from the above L while disputing the victim L, because the victim was pushed away from the victim L, and the act of this case was self-defense or self-defense.