Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

Defendant

The summary of the grounds for appeal on the part of the facts charged A concerning the assertion on the part of the facts charged related to the A is that Defendant A is erroneous, or that the embezzlement of KRW 4.3 billion on February 10, 2012 is not involved in the embezzlement of this part.

(2) Even if Defendant A’s involvement was recognized, it cannot be said that Defendant A had an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition since he/she had temporarily stored the above check with intent to return it again to Y.

The embezzlement of KRW 6.5 billion on February 15, 2012 (1) Defendant A was not involved in the embezzlement of this part.

② Even if Defendant A’s participation is recognized, V Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) received bonds with warrants from AC (hereinafter “AC”) as collateral and lent money, which can only constitute embezzlement, but also constitute breach of trust.

However, Defendant A believed that at the time, “it has value as security for bonds with warrants” to the end of Defendant C, which is a certified public accountant, so it should be deemed that Defendant A had no intention to commit a breach of trust.

On March 7, 2012, 2012, the embezzlement of KRW 900 million was not directed by Defendant A, and even if involved, Defendant A did not gain any profit, and thus, Defendant A does not constitute embezzlement.

Since the embezzlement of KRW 1.52 billion on March 2, 2012, and KRW 750 million on April 10, 2012 and the embezzlement of KRW 750,000 on April 10, 2012 is carried out to enhance the profitability of the victim company, it is unreasonable to evaluate the embezzlement as embezzlement.

The sentence of imprisonment (five years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor misjudgments the facts (the embezzlement of KRW 2.3777,877 million around February 20, 2012) of the lower court found Defendant A not guilty of this part of the embezzlement, reliance on the AZ’s statement and Q’s statement that “The Defendant did not receive an order to withdraw the funds of the victim company from ICT and did not receive an order from Defendant A.”

However, according to the evidence revealed in the record, the defendant A is the victim of AZ and Q.