All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as “B”) as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the lower judgment. The Defendant is the victim B (hereinafter referred to as “B”).

(ii)the sentencing of the lower court (one year of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment, one year of 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable even if the Defendant did not have embezzled that the monthly rent received from H, and even if the Defendant’s act was found guilty, there was no intention of embezzlement (the misunderstanding of fact).

(F) 2.2

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged (in fact-finding) even though the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, obtained pecuniary benefits by deceivingO as stated in the facts charged, and attempted to escape the obligation for the payment of construction price by forging the sales contract under the name of O, but did not guilty of this part of the facts charged (in fact-finding). 2) The lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable

(F) Determination; 2. Determination

A. Determination of the facts against the defendant's assertion of mistake 1) The representative director of a company shall not be held liable for embezzlement, regardless of whether there was a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors on the disposal of the company's assets for any purpose other than expenditure for the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do8796, Oct. 11, 2007; 2006Do8796, Oct. 11, 2007; 2007; 2006Do8796, Oct. 11, 2007). The representative director does not appropriate funds owned by the company for the repayment of his/her claims against the company, not for the repayment of claims against the company, but for the disposal of the company's funds for private purposes by arbitrarily using the status of representative director, etc.