1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for seven years;

3. 1,394,200,000 won from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In relation to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant E (hereinafter “E”) is the victim E (hereinafter “E”).

As the representative director of the board of directors, I, J, K, L, M and above N-ground buildings and above J-ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) in Daegu Suwon-gu, J, K, K, L, M and above-ground buildings.

(2) In relation to the fraud, a crime of fraud is not established on the ground that the Defendant had the intent to repay money from the victim at the time of borrowing money from the victim. ③ In relation to the collection of money, the Defendant’s real estate in this case and the building on the ground of Daegu Suwon-gu O (hereinafter “O-ground building”).

2) Since the Defendant did not know that the amount equivalent to the market price of the instant real estate and O-ground buildings was created by G’s criminal proceeds, it is unreasonable to additionally collect from the Defendant the amount equivalent to the market price of the instant real estate and O-ground buildings. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment and one billion won of surcharge 1.39 billion won) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Of the embezzlement, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s continuous establishment of the right to collateral security constituted a crime after the sum of the maximum debt amount exceeds the market price of real estate after deeming the crime as an imprisoned ex post facto act, and that the Defendant continued to commit a crime according to the same criminal intent, and that the subsequent loan is likely to cause new infringement of legal interests, the lower court’s determination that the prior loan was not guilty on the ground was erroneous. 2) The lower court’s determination that the Defendant was not guilty on

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the corporation is an independent right holder independent of the shareholders, and its understanding is necessarily consistent with the same.