All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) We examine only the grounds for appeal filed within the period for submitting the statement of grounds of appeal, to the extent that it supplements the grounds for appeal filed within the period for submitting the statement of grounds of appeal. (A) As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the instant loan was made by confirming and implementing the loan by the victim IBK Enterprise Bank (hereinafter “victim”). Since the value of the loan was calculated as KRW 2.2 billion in the appraisal conducted after the completion of the factory of the Plaintiff Company D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), the amount acquired by the Defendant was calculated as KRW 2.45 billion in the amount of the loan of this case and the said appraisal was 2.2 billion in the difference between the loan of KRW 2.5 billion and the above amount of the loan of this case and the actual agreed construction price of KRW 2.2 billion in the amount exceeding the above amount, there was a deception.

It shall not be deemed that there was a criminal intent to obtain fraud or to commit a crime.

B) Regarding the embezzlement of occupational duties (as to the amount stated in the judgment of the court below, the amount indicated in this part of the charges is the goods amount that the Defendant’s deceased K received from the selling place while acting as a textile consignment processing broker in the name of the victim D, and thus, it cannot be deemed as K’s funds, and even if the said amount is D’s funds, the Defendant used it as a transaction price or intermediary fee in accordance with the above Textiles consignment processing brokerage business, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have embezzled the said money. 2) The sentence (two years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor 1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, according to the erroneous determination of facts (the list of crimes Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 8 in the annexed Form No. 2, 3, and 8 in the original judgment), the Defendant was under occupational custody as stated in this part of the facts charged.