The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. The Defendants held the embezzlement (the Defendants) as the representative director of the PBB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “P”) and the shareholders of the said company at the time.

With the consent of M, only borrowed KRW 200 million, and not embezzled the above money.

O and M state that the Defendants did not consent to borrow. However, the Defendants’ acceptance of Q was an essential element in the P’s business, and therefore, the Defendants’ use of Q as the acquisition fund was in line with the O and M’s interests. ② O and M’s statement that the above KRW 200 million was expected to be transferred to M was contrary to the common sense in light of the following circumstances and the attitude of the parties; ③ even based on M’s statement, it is recognized that the Defendants were notified of the intent to borrow KRW 200 million from the Defendant B, ④O and M were not reliable, comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Defendants borrowed the above money and used it for Q’s acquisition fund, ② the above KRW 200 million was anticipated to be transferred to M, and ③ even based on M’s statement, the Defendants were notified of the intent to borrow KRW 200 million from the Defendant B.

B. As long as Defendant A and M agreed to lend funds, the Defendant’s preparing and sending a consumption lending contract with such content cannot be deemed as constituting the forgery of the private document and the use of the above investigation document, and the Defendant did not have any intention to do so.

(c)

The purport of the Defendant’s complaint (Defendant A) is that “The Defendant, despite having written the instant consumption lending and borrowing contract around February 2014, filed a complaint with the purport that “I would have forged and exercised the instant consumption lending and lending contract on July 2014,” and “O and M would be punished as a crime of false accusation,” and in fact, the instant consumption lending and lending contract was written around February 2014, and thus, the Defendant stated false facts.

It can not be seen, and the defendant's intention is also false.