The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Defendant

B. The summary of the judgment of innocence is not guilty.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the name of the defendant in each item of defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") is omitted; and (b) the above defendant is only the name.

The sentence sentenced to the sentence (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B Fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant did not conspired with A to embezzled the instant dividends, and there is no fact that he received dividends from A.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds of the testimony of A without credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B B Prior to the public prosecutor (the part not guilty against Defendant A) received the amount related to the members’ conference in his account and directed the Defendant to receive the instant dividends from the Defendant’s account. The Defendant withdrawn the total amount of dividends immediately after the deposit and delivered the remainder to B except for the part used by himself, and the Defendant kept the dividends to the members of the members’ conference.

In light of the above, the Defendant conspired with B on the entire dividend of this case, and the intention of unlawful acquisition was revealed when the Defendant received the dividend payment with the Defendant’s account, and thus, the crime of embezzlement was committed. Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a judgment that the Defendant cannot be deemed as embezzlement in collusion with B on the remainder of the facts charged except for KRW 106,086,244, which the Defendant used directly. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Defendant

The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in B was also disputed to the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part.