All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds for appeal by Defendant ED (former name: A: The name prior to the opening name), the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, found Defendant ED guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) among the facts charged against Defendant ED, on the ground that the instant cooperative project contract is a bearer or non-exclusive contract similar to the association agreement under the Civil Act for the common purpose of profit-making business, and thus, the price of supplied goods that Defendant ED received from the trader from the trader and the social welfare foundation C (hereinafter “C”), and if it was arbitrarily consumed, the crime of embezzlement cannot be exempted.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the cooperative project contract in this case, the recognition of property or embezzlement, and the scope of application of the Social Welfare Business Act.

2. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, lent the name of “AD” affiliated with Defendant B, for which Defendant B was designated as a production facility for products manufactured by persons with severe disabilities.

The court found Defendant B guilty of violating the Special Act on the Preferential Purchase of Products Products with Disabilities among the facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the nominal lending prohibited by the Special Act on the Purchase of Products manufactured by Persons with Disabilities by misunderstanding the fact by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

3...