1. The part of the lower judgment against Defendant A, C, and D shall be reversed.

2. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, Defendant C, and Defendant D.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court convicted Defendant B of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) among the facts charged against Defendant B, and acquitted Defendant B of the charge of occupational embezzlement, and only the prosecutor filed an appeal against the non-guilty part of Defendant B, and thus the guilty part against Defendant B was separated

Therefore, the guilty part against B does not belong to the subject of the judgment of this Court.

Defendant

A1) As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), the Defendant has not embezzled bus transportation revenues of P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the sole basis of the statements made by B, C, etc. without credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

B) As to the crime of occupational embezzlement and interference with business, the Defendant did not have any order to deduct bus transport revenues from the bus fees sealed by the employees of the Korea Industrial Relations Institute, an incorporated foundation, who was requested to investigate transport revenues from RR cities, as stated in paragraph (3) of the crime in the judgment below. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the sole basis of the statements of C and D without credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Even if the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the Defendant A (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (the point of each business embezzlement of Defendant B, E, and F) (the point of each business embezzlement of Defendant B), Defendant E’s consistent confession statement, the facts confirmation and statement of AI, the ticket receipt ledger in 2008 to 2011 (the part of the bus stops, the ticket sheet of cross-city buses).