All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) The Defendants’ occupational embezzlement committed by the Defendants in collusion with the co-defendant B (hereinafter “B”) of the lower court as stated in this part of the facts charged, and did not constitute embezzlement of the victim J’s subsidies. The lower court convicted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) Defendant A’s occupational breach of trust did not have any provision prohibiting the Plaintiff I Agricultural Cooperatives (hereinafter “FFF”) from accumulating points in the transaction between institutions, and MFF (hereinafter “MF”) provided much assistance to the sales of the Plaintiff IF, thus, Defendant A’s point accumulation cannot be deemed as damage as breach of trust. The lower court convicted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 8 million / Defendant C: a fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the list of offenses against Defendant A

2. Regarding the embezzlement of occupational embezzlement as stated in this part of the facts charged, Defendant A should be deemed to have embezzled the victim I’s property with the intent of unlawful acquisition, such as this part of the facts charged, but the court below acquitted the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing against Defendant A is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Determination on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The lower court’s determination on the Defendants’ occupational embezzlement is based on the “a summary of evidence” of the lower judgment.