All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles [the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)] A] The Defendant was given legal advice, etc. to deposit KRW 1.5 billion in the account under the name of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) as at the time of the previous violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, until the legal relationship with the Defendant became final and conclusive, and then deposited the above KRW 1.5 billion in the account of the A deposit without the intention to transfer the ownership in B. Thus, since there is no consignment relationship with the Defendant as to the above KRW 1.5 billion, the Defendant is in the position of a person who keeps another’s property.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B) Since the Defendant deposited KRW 1.5 billion with B in order to obtain repayment of the above claim for the refund of the provisional deposit amount of KRW 1.5 billion with B, and used it in the payment of the additional collection charge, it cannot be recognized as the Defendant’s intention of unlawful acquisition.

C) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination 1 on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) based on the evidence adopted by the lower court, i.e., the following circumstances that are comprehensively acknowledged by the lower court, i.e.,: (a) the Defendant, at the prosecutor’s office, placed in the company in the form of a provisional collection as to the deposit of KRW 1.5 billion in the amount of KRW 1.5 billion, on the grounds that the Defendant did not make any money in the form of a rebates; and (b) the Defendant, “the said money is an erroneous amount of money and is in breach of trust; and (c) the Defendant, on the grounds that the embezzlement was considered to be a money to be returned

I think, “The money to be paid to the State with an additional collection charge,” and will be paid from the author.