Defendant

All appeals filed by A and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The lower court acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged in the instant case on the charge of occupational embezzlement of KRW 89,338,200 due to voluntary use of company funds from October 15, 2012 to December 18, 2012, and on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) due to the establishment of a company’s asset collateral security right against the Defendants, and convicted the Defendants of the remainder of the facts charged except the aforementioned facts charged.

The prosecutor appealed from the judgment of the court below on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquittal portion of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the establishment of the defendant's company's asset collateral security right, and unfair sentencing as to the guilty portion

Therefore, among the lower judgment, the part of the occupational embezzlement of KRW 89,338,200 due to the voluntary use of company funds from October 15, 2012 to December 18, 2012 against Defendant A is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, since it becomes final and conclusive separately from the purpose of the appeal period. As such, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the remainder other than the aforementioned separately and finalized part.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: Defendant A involved in the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) through the establishment of a company's asset collateral security right against the Defendants, and Defendant B is the AF and AG (hereinafter "AG") in the judgment of the court below.

2) Each of the instant collective security rights under the name of the court (hereinafter “instant collective security rights”)

(F) this F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”);

There was a criminal intent of breach of trust because it was known that it was established to secure the obligation of H, not to mention the fact that it was established to secure the obligation of H.

Nevertheless, this part is applicable to the Defendants.