All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) The facts charged in the instant case constitute “the case in which the decision of dismissal under Article 262(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act became final and conclusive” as stated in the latter part of Article 262(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, the prosecution of the instant case should be dismissed.

B) H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) and F, an incorporated foundation (hereinafter “instant foundation”) are practically a single economic community with the same purpose different from the relationship between a single-person company and a shareholder. The Defendants merely executed the funds of the victim company in accordance with the resolution of the board of directors of the Foundation. Thus, there was no intent of embezzlement.

In particular, Defendant C merely executed the funds of the victim company as the regular director of the victim company according to the resolution of the board of directors, and Defendant C merely did not participate in the execution of funds because it was in charge of external affairs such as administrative procedures as the managing director of the instant foundation. Thus, Defendant C and B merely did not intend to acquire unlawful profits or embezzlement.

C) Defendant C and B recognized the victim company and the Foundation of this case as the same legal entity, and misunderstood that the dismissal of an application for adjudication was no longer a crime due to the dismissal of an application for adjudication, so the above Defendants should be acquitted in accordance with Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

D) As Defendant B, who did not have a personal relationship in the crime of embezzlement of occupational crime, participated in Defendant A’s criminal act with a personal relationship, Defendant B should be sentenced to punishment for simple embezzlement, not for occupational embezzlement.

2) Illegal sentencing

B. Improper sentencing of each prosecutor

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court as to whether the dismissal of an application for adjudication became final and conclusive.

On this ground, the court below made an application for adjudication.