Defendant

All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

B. The part that Defendant B withdraws eight million won from the victim corporation account on December 1, 2014 is withdrawn from the victim corporation account under the name of living expenses and divided with H.

In addition to the sequence 85 to 88, 90, 91, and 93 in the list of crimes in the judgment of the court below, the remainder of the expenditure is used as business promotion expenses of the corporation.

The sentence (six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

In contrast to the purpose stated in the facts charged, Defendant A paid only 22 million won out of the borrowed money as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the borrowed money of this case”) to Defendant B, and the remainder of KRW 13 million was used individually.

In addition, the Defendant received criminal agreement amounting to KRW 100 million on November 2016, and did not repay the instant loan to the victim I.

According to the above circumstances and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant A is fully aware of the intention of the fraud, and there is also a conspiracy with the defendant A who uses the above fraud together with the above fraud.

The sentence imposed by the court below of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

Defendant

B’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition in embezzlement should be proven by a prosecutor. The proof should be based on strict evidence with probative value that makes a judge not having any reasonable doubt, and if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to determine the interest of the defendant, however, even if the defendant was not in custody due to his/her own entrustment, his/her whereabouts or location is not explained, or the funds used in the place of use claimed by the defendant are different.