All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant’s defense counsel submitted a statement of grounds for appeal claiming mistake of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing as follows, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal since it was submitted after the deadline for submitting the grounds

In addition, even if ex officio, there is no error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below, and the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

(1) In fact-finding ① Although J and K are creditors of the victim company as stated in the lower judgment, the lower court determined that there was no claim against J and K victim company due to misconception of the fact.

② The lower court neglected to examine the amount of damage, and thereby neglected to do so, the sum of the face value of promissory notes with J and K as the addressee is 6.5 million won or less (6.5 million won or less).

(2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of parties to a contract, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of occupational breach of trust under the Criminal Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (3) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of occupational breach of trust under the Criminal Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (1) In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the imposition of occupational breach of trust (2 years of imprisonment, 3 years of suspended sentence) and the lower court’s punishment (3 years of unfair sentencing) was too unreasonable. (1) In addition to the transactions of provisional or provisional payment, the Defendant released a large amount of KRW 169 million from the victim company in cash, and the Defendant’s withdrawal of the said cash from the Defendant’s claim amount against the victim company would be the amount less than the face value of the promissory note amount.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby calculating the amount of the defendant's claim.