Of the judgment of the court below, the guilty portion against Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

The point of occupational embezzlement against B is respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (1) embezzled the money withdrawn from the account in the name of Defendant A and C (M) (A) with respect to the embezzlement of the money deposited in the account in the name of Defendant A, Defendant A, the nominal representative director of the L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L

Nor may this money be used by Defendant A and C for private purposes.

Even if it is a benefit received while working as an actual representative director of I, it cannot be viewed as embezzlement.

(B) As to the embezzlement of liquid vehicle-related vehicles, Defendant A established I to develop the existing area of reinforcement, and used I as a means of movement of the employee in charge (Defendant C’s driving) in the course of performing duties, such as purchase of real estate.

(C) As to the embezzlement of real estate located in Posified military P, Defendant A entered into an agreement with the purchaser D andO to obtain KRW 280 million of the transfer price of the shares from the P located in Posified military P, instead of cash, and the transfer of the shares with the purchaser D andO. The substitution of the shares with shares without deposit KRW 280 million in I is nothing more related since Defendant A’s transfer of the shares entirely.

(2) Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles), as an employee in charge of the I’s accounting, Defendant B used the Company’s funds mechanical and auxiliaryly in accordance with the direction of Defendant A, who is an actual operator. Thus, Defendant B did not compete with Defendant A and C, and did not intend to obtain unlawful acquisition.

In addition, there is no intention of joint processing and no functional control of one's own process, so it cannot be recognized as a joint principal offender.

(3) Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 3 years of the suspended sentence of one year and six months of imprisonment; 2 years of the suspended sentence of one year and one year of imprisonment; 3 years of the suspended sentence of six months) against the illegal Defendants in sentencing is too unreasonable.

(b) (1) is the case of prosecutor, misunderstanding the facts.