The judgment below

Among them, the part of conviction against Defendant A (including the part of acquittal) and the part against Defendant I.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The notarial deed of a promissory note amounting to KRW 1.5 billion issued to AL on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation in Trust) due to the misunderstanding of facts and the preparation of a notarial deed of KRW 1.5 billion against AL by Defendant A by the public prosecutor, is issued to guarantee the obligation to return down payment upon the termination of a stock transfer contract of Defendant A, which is the obligation to AL (limited to the case of Gu BI corporation, hereinafter referred to as “BI corporation and hereinafter referred to as “N corporation”), and is written for the personal interest of Defendant A.

H cannot be deemed to have been solely issued without Defendant A’s prior instruction or consent.

Therefore, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged on the ground that Defendant A’s conspiracy was recognized.

Defendant

Defendant A filed an appeal for embezzlement of KRW 230 million for A, F, B, and G (part of the charge No. 1-217 of the charge) with respect to the part concerning embezzlement of KRW 200 million for A, F, B, and G (N in part of the charge No. 1-217 of the charge) by issuing a notarial deed as to the obligation to return down payment following the termination of the contract for acquisition of shares of AL, which is a personal obligation for AL, as described in the foregoing A. Therefore, in order for AL to release the seizure of the NN’s share capital payment account based on the above notarial deed, the amount borrowed from Defendant A from Defendant C is merely a personal borrowing. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted Defendant A and L Co. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “AM”).

(C) As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “C Q”) regarding the acquisition fund of shares, the Appeal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C Q

The fact that ED, a regular manager of the business, had worked for Defendant A upon the proposal of Defendant A, Defendant A used the vice-chairperson of Q, and Defendant AM share acquisition contract of this case is Defendant A, D, and EE.