All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The court below's scope of trial in this case against the Defendants rendered a not-guilty verdict as to the fraud of Defendant A among the facts charged in this case, and all of the remaining facts charged against the Defendants were convicted, and only the Defendants appealed as to the part of the judgment of the court below, and the Defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal as to the part of the judgment of the court below. However, since the Defendant's appeal as to the part of the judgment of the judgment of the court below was based on the claim for a judgment benefiting from correction of original judgment, it cannot have the right to appeal unless the judgment is disadvantageous to himself. Thus, the Defendant's appeal against the judgment of the acquittal, which is the most favorable to the Defendant, is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do1091, Jul. 29, 1994; 2012Do11200, Dec. 27, 2012).

The part of the acquittal was separated and finalized, and was excluded from the object of this Court's trial.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the above guilty part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In settling the factual relation with AE, the actual representative of the victim limited partnership E (hereinafter “victim company”), Defendant B received the total of KRW 11,112,400 as stated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant liquor payment”) under the pretext of settlement of accounts corresponding to the ratio of shares in the damaged company Defendant B’s share, and Defendant B did not make an occupational embezzlement of the instant liquor payment as stated in the part of the denial of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of the instant denial portion by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The court below rendered an unfair sentencing decision against the Defendants.