All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) Although Defendants, not clans, have filed a criminal complaint against Z etc., Defendant A’s individual who is not a clan, the above case is highly related to the organization’s business and was acting for the interests of the organization. As such, Defendant A’s payment of attorney’s fees in relation to the above case does not constitute occupational embezzlement.

2) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on Defendant A’s grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court rendered a disposition that there was no suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. in the case of accusation (joint confinement), obstruction of duties, fabrication of private documents, and use of the above investigation documents (Evidence of insufficient evidence), and that there was no prosecution right against the suspicion of intimidation, considering the above circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the lower court, namely, ① an act of violence against the Defendants was caused by conflict of opinion among the members of the clan regarding the sale of real estate, and it cannot be readily concluded that the lawsuit against the above Defendant was committed for the overall interest of the clans. ② The prosecutor of the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutor’s Office affiliated with the Seoul East District Public Prosecutor’s Office did not err in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as alleged by the lower court, on July 16, 2015.

B. However, there are circumstances such as the fact that the above defendant was the primary offender in determining the unfair argument of sentencing, and that he did not gain personal financial benefits due to the instant crime, but damage.