The judgment below

Among them, the part of conviction against Defendant A and the part of innocence against occupational embezzlement shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) In fact, the lower court convicted Defendant A1 of this part of the facts charged, although there was no fact that the Defendant embezzled the property under the victim’s door, on the grounds that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, 2 million won, which the Defendant received from the punishment business entity P, separately from the punishment amount. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B 1, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant did not take earth and sand out in the Cze-gun I and J (hereinafter “instant leased land”) that is the land leased from the victim’s door, and the Defendant did not have the status of custodian in the crime of embezzlement with respect to earth and sand taken out from AE (hereinafter “the instant leased land”). Even if the Defendant took earth and sand out from the leased land of this case, the Defendant did not have the status of custodian in the crime of embezzlement, and even if the Defendant took earth and sand out from the leased land of this case, there was a consent from the victim’s door A through the general secretary

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

(c)

1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the charge of occupational breach of trust by Defendant A, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, although the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant created a pledge on a fixed term deposit in the victim’s door in order to secure his personal obligation intentionally, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

B) The lower court found Defendant A’s primary occupational embezzlement of KRW 1.7 million not having sufficiently deliberated on the appropriate rent of the instant land, and found Defendant A not guilty of this part of the facts charged, despite the existence of fraud, etc. against L (State).