All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The charge of embezzlement of KRW 350,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “AK”) for the service charge of the LAK (hereinafter referred to as the “AK”) (related to Section 1-A of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below) was delivered to M by the Defendant who received KRW 350,000,000 from AK representative AK, without entering into an agreement with AK by additionally paying service charges or paying service charges in excess.

In the first instance, the fact that the return of KRW 320 million from AM was accepted by the first instance court, but the fact that the return was not received by 350 million as stated in this part of the facts charged, pointing out to the purport that it did not return KRW 350 million as stated in this part of the facts charged.

After the defendant entered into a service contract with AK and received a return of KRW 320 million from the service fees paid to DK by D (hereinafter referred to as D). However, it does not receive a return of KRW 350 million, such as this part of the facts charged, as stated in this part of the facts charged, since the defendant did not receive a return of KRW 350 million, which is the difference in this part of the facts charged, shall not be recognized as embezzlement.

The charge of embezzlement of KRW 3650 million for the services of the LABD (hereinafter referred to as the “N”) and the charge of embezzlement of KRW 100 million (the charge No. 1-A. 1-A in the judgment of the court below) (the charge No. 1-A. 1-A) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant entered into a service contract with N and returned KRW 200 million out of the service cost, but there is no separate request from NN to transfer KRW 165 million out of advance to the account of the LAP (hereinafter referred to as the “AP”), and it was paid by the Defendant in return for the introduction that NAP itself and the AP made to the AP to enter into a service contract with D. Therefore, the Defendant embezzled this.

subsection (b) of this section.

The embezzlement of KRW 800 million for A Q’s obligation (related to the crime No. 1-b. of the lower judgment) is invested in M M with the consent of M.