Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part of conviction against Defendant B and the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) Violation of the Special Economic Leave Punishment, etc. (Embezzlement) (Embezzlement) against the J listed in [Attachment B (1) Nos. 1 through 5 of the List of Crimes (Embezzlement 5) is a violation of the Special Economic Leave Punishment, etc. (Embezzlement) (Embezzlement).

The embezzlement of the funds of the J listed in [Attachment] Nos. 1 to 5 of the list of crimes in attached Form 1 is committed by A alone, and there is no fact that the defendant has participated in this part of the crime.

This part of the facts charged is based on the statement of A that embezzled KRW 4 billion according to the direction of the defendant, and the statement of A cannot be believed to be a false assertion to transfer his responsibility to the defendant, and there is no evidence corresponding to A except for the statement of A.

Payment of the funds of J (hereinafter referred to as “stock company” in all the name of the company) to I is an act of not benefiting or causing damage to the defendant. Thus, there is no reason to block the above crime by the defendant.

Nevertheless, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged in collusion with A that the Defendant committed the instant embezzlement. In so doing, the judgment of the first instance court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) Article 6, 7, and 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment (Embezzlement) of the Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) Nos. 6, 7, and 8 of the List of Crimes (Embezzlement 6, 7, and 8) provides that the occupational custodian of KRW 2.9 billion in the amount of embezzlement No. 6, 7, and 8 of the annexed Table of Crimes A was the representative director of the J. Although the Defendant did not keep or instruct the custody thereof, the court of first instance erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the subject of embezzlement or by misapprehending the rules of evidence, thereby misleading the facts regarding the lending of KRW 2.9 billion in the process of lending money by violating the rules of evidence.