All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the course of the Defendant lending KRW 40 million to E in the name of the victim’s cooperative, the Defendant deposited the Defendant’s money to the account in the name of the victim’s cooperative, and then remitted the money to the account under the name of the company N (N) operated by E (hereinafter “N”) in the course of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and thus, the Defendant does not constitute a crime of aiding and abetting the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of suspended sentence of two-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, KRW 30,00,50 on April 3, 2014, indicated No. 11, indicated in the table of crime No. 11 attached to the lower judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine, was not money remitted by the company X (hereinafter “X”) to the account of the victim’s cooperative, but the amount that was wrongfully remitted to the account of the victim’s cooperative, and the Defendant instructed the employee of the victim’s cooperative, who was aware of the above facts, to transfer it to the account in the name of E, so the Defendant aided and abetted this part of the embezzlement.

full recognition may be accepted.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine ) The Defendant asserted that this part of the appeal is the same as the grounds for appeal in the lower court.

The court below rejected the above assertion on the grounds stated in its reasoning in the item "the judgment on the argument of the defendant and the defense counsel".

Examining the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined.