All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendants’ common assertion of mistake of fact (the Defendant’s occupational embezzlement part around February 15, 2012) is merely a fact that the Defendants approved the disbursement resolution prepared by E with the knowledge that they actually performed the installation work of the Man-Male apartment, and there was no fact that they received or used the money that they withdrawn according to the above disbursement resolution. 2) Defendant A’s assertion (the occupation of occupational embezzlement around December 4, 2013) (the occupation of occupational embezzlement) that Defendant A received KRW 500,000 from N under the pretext of the apartment development fund, such as that written in the charges.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing (one million won against Defendant A, and seven hundred thousand won against Defendant B) declared by the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On February 15, 2012, the judgment of the court below on the charge of occupational embezzlement of the Defendants on or around February 15, 2012, based on various evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the following circumstances: ① from the investigation agency to the court of the first instance, “E withdraws KRW 140,000 after preparing the disbursement resolution as if the Defendants did not perform construction work in collusion with the Defendant, and makes a statement to Defendant B; ② the Defendants approved the false disbursement resolution prepared by E even though they did not perform the installation work, and Defendant B made a false statement on the details of the installation work in the simplified receipt and transaction statement of the blank, ③ the Defendants merely approved the disbursement resolution prepared by E with the knowledge that the installation work of the Mandole will be carried out in the future; but, in light of the lack of any problems or subsequent measures taken after the approval, it is difficult for the Defendants to easily understand the above reasons in collusion with the E.