All appeals filed by prosecutors and Defendant B shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) Although there was no fact that the Defendant conspired with the Defendant A in collusion to commit the instant occupational embezzlement, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by misunderstanding the fact. (2) The lower court’s allegation of unreasonable sentencing against Defendant B is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence (a fine of KRW 3 million) imposed on the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail with the allegations by the Defendants and the defense counsel. The circumstances in the judgment of the court below are as follows: ① Defendant B and the Defendant A put the vehicle used by the Defendant A into a maintenance office on the day of the instant case. However, according to Q Q’s work order, it is difficult to believe that the date of storage was April 7, 201, the day following the instant crime, and even if considering the work contents, it is not deemed that the considerable time was not taken even after considering the work contents, ② Defendant B’s above assertion was hard to believe, and Defendant B did not leave the post on the grounds that Defendant B and the defense counsel was phoneed to Defendant B at around 18:53 on the day of the instant crime, but immediately after Defendant B and Defendant B left the post on the grounds that Defendant B were phoneed to Defendant B, Defendant B and Defendant B’s telephone at the time of the instant crime, Defendant B and Defendant B’s telephone call at the time, Defendant B and Defendant C1 and Defendant C 1 and Defendant C1 and Defendant C 1 and Defendant C 1 were Defendant B.