All appeals filed by prosecutors and Defendant A shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes with respect to Defendant A and B) is sufficiently recognized in view of the following: (a) the violation of the prohibition of exceeding the lending limit limit to the same day; (b) the loan was made by providing a formal security with no value as security; (c) there was no actual inspection of security; and (d) Defendant A submitted false security documents, and thus, Defendant A and B’s intentional or unlawful intent to acquire.

2) The sentence that the lower court sentenced to Defendant A and C (Defendant A and Defendant C) (one year and two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, six months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution) is unreasonable.

B. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) Defendant A’s occupational embezzlement used KRW 200 million of the damaged company’s money as the intent of Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) to receive the payment of the company’s own claim against K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”), and at the same time, there was no intention to acquire unlawful profits for the said Defendant.

2) The transfer of the instant mechanical devices is conducted between K and the Defendant C, the representative of its employees, for the repayment of the wage and retirement allowance claims with the highest priority repayment right. Thus, it does not constitute a false transfer, which is a constituent element of the crime of evading compulsory execution.

2. Determination

A. As to the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court acquitted Defendant A and B on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A and B, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor on the following grounds alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B had an intention to acquire the intent to acquire the intent to commit a breach of trust or to acquire the illegal act, and accordingly, Defendant A cannot be held liable for a joint principal offender for the crime of

① Defendant B did not conduct an inspection on the security while making an additional loan exceeding the credit limit for each borrower. It is uncertain that Defendant B did not do so.