All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of both the violation of the Act on the AW-related A’s AW-related A’s Issuance of Promissory Notes (Misappropriation), the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) related to BO, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud).

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of occupational breach of trust due to the issuance of promissory notes with a face value of KRW 572 million against C among the instant facts charged.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on damages incurred in occupational breach of trust.

In addition, the ground of appeal on the point of unfair sentencing cannot be seen as a legitimate ground of appeal on the ground of appeal by the defendant A, as seen above.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.