All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the defendants' grounds of appeal

A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, on the part of the Defendants’ occupational embezzlement, may recognize the fact of embezzlement by remitting the Defendants’ amounting to KRW 9.415 billion in total via 15 times as shown in the judgment of the first instance in collusion with Q to the accounts in the name of V, which Defendant B manages in the name of a borrowed account, as the service price under the requisition service contract, while the Defendants kept the funds of N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) in the course of business in collusion with Q.

In light of the facts charged against the Defendants, the Defendants guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) in the name of service payment.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

There was no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on the business judgment rule, the distinction between embezzlement and breach of trust, the statutory principle of crime, the intent of embezzlement and the intent of unlawful acquisition.

B. In the case of a single company with which the shares of the company (1) are actually attributed to one shareholder with respect to the embezzlement part of the company’s occupational embezzlement for repayment of the accounts payable to Defendant A and Defendant B, the company and the shareholder as a separate person, cannot be deemed as immediately holding the assets of the one shareholder. Thus, if the funds owned by the company are consumed at will during the occupational custody, it constitutes embezzlement (see Supreme Court Decisions 99Do1040, Jul. 9, 199; 2006Do2296, Sept. 21, 2007). The director of the company is merely in its management.