All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts (guilty part) 1 as to each of the loans stated in this part of the facts charged by the Defendants was personally borrowed by Defendant A, and Defendant A did not have the status of keeping each of the above loans for “Epat Association” (hereinafter “Association”).

In addition, since the Defendants used the above borrowed money for the partnership, they did not have the intention to acquire unlawful profits.

On the other hand, since there is no evidence to know the specific details of the use of credit card as shown in the facts charged, it is unreasonable to conclude that even if the defendants paid the credit card price with the above loan, it constitutes a personal use of funds.

2) Defendant B did not have conspired with Defendant A to commit a crime.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine by the prosecutor (non-indicted 1) may recognize the fact that the Defendants used funds for their own sake, not for each of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below accepted the Defendants’ legal arguments to the effect that the Defendants used funds for the purpose of paying money invested in the business of the association (hereinafter “the instant business”) and repaid unsold apartment units on the basis of the material that has not been verified the actual authenticity and legal validity, and that the Defendants did not intend to obtain illegal acquisition of embezzlement, or did not commit deception or breach of trust by the Defendants.

The wrong determination was made.

(1) Defendants did not follow the procedures such as a resolution of the board of directors or the report of the general meeting of the union regarding the borrowing or use of funds.

② The Defendants did not submit the materials specifically asserted and related to whom they had paid money under any of the pretext of the test. However, the Defendants did not submit the accounting materials, including receipts.