All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts, etc.) Defendant A used KRW 70 million under the pretext of provisional payment while substantially operating the Victim H H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”). However, Defendant A had an intent to obtain unlawful procurement in light of the fact that he/she had an intent to repay it.

subsection (b) of this section.

B) Defendant A did not withdraw KRW 2 million from the victim H’s funds and used them for personal purposes.

C) Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant A guilty of occupational embezzlement. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A, who was improper in sentencing, is too unreasonable.

B. Until January 2010, Defendant A managed the funds as a substantial representative of the victim H by mistake, etc., Defendant B cannot be deemed as a representative director in the form of a representative director, and Defendant B cannot be deemed as a person in charge of the business of the victim H’s funds. Defendant B is not liable for embezzlement on the ground that Defendant A did not have the intent of embezzlement.

B) Defendant B was approved by the victim H’s director’s consent to the disbursement of KRW 22,50,000,000,000,000,000 borrowed from the victim H, and Defendant B had the intent to obtain unjust enrichment in light of the amount’s size and place of use, etc.

subsection (b) of this section.

C) Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant B guilty of Defendant B’s occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The lower court’s sentencing on Defendant B is too unreasonable.

(c)

(1) A) Around January 2010, there was an agreement on Defendant A’s earnings. However, the Defendants withdrawn money more than the profits that Defendant A had to receive without undergoing the process of settlement of profits. As such, the Defendants’ withdrawal of H’s cash after January 6, 2010 constitutes embezzlement.