The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

The court below's scope of judgment in this Court is as shown in the annexed List of Crimes in the judgment below as to the charge (general crime) of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) of this case where the defendant arbitrarily consumed and embezzled the total amount of the above money without paying settlement money under the business agreement to the victim D with respect to 527,105,90 won which the defendant received as a sales agency fee.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of embezzlement of KRW 44,00 in total as indicated in Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 12. However, the lower court found that embezzlement of KRW 83,105,90 in total as indicated in the same crime list No. 3, 7, 8, and 9 was not proven, and found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds of the judgment.

However, as seen below, the prosecutor did not file an appeal on the acquittal portion of the above reasons, and appealed only on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing.

Ultimately, the part of the judgment below's acquittal of the above reasons was judged in the trial along with the remaining convictions in the relation of a single comprehensive crime, but it was exempted from the object of public defense among the parties. Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment below's acquittal is followed and the decision is not re-determined.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The defendant is entitled to receive independently a sales agency fee equivalent to his own share from Co., Ltd. E.

Furthermore, the agreement between the defendant and D on September 7, 2004 was reversed later.

Therefore, as indicated in the attached Table 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10.12 of the crime list in the judgment of the court below, even if the defendant received and consumed a total of KRW 444,00,000,000 from E, a stock company, as stated in the attached Table 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10.12, it is merely a sales agency fee for the defendant's own share, and it does not include the share

The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.