All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) The victim still was liable for the payment of physical wages, tuition fees, and S PHA (hereinafter “SA”) meal expenses even after resignation of the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and the cancellation refund money deposited in the national bank account (J; hereinafter “the instant account”) in the victim’s name was used not only for the payment of the wages of G employees’ wages, tuition fees, and S private teaching institute meal expenses, but also the Defendants did not know in advance of the timing and amount of deposit of the cancellation refund money of the pension insurance. In addition, the Defendants did not embezzlement the cancellation refund money deposited in the instant account in collusion.

B) Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of the statements made by the victim without credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The victim was obligated to pay service costs under the consulting agreement entered into with the Defendant Company H (hereinafter “H”) operated by the Defendant Company A. As of September 14, 201, the Defendant was obligated to pay KRW 192,040,000 to Defendant A as of September 14, 201, and the Defendant was obligated to pay part of the rent for Defendant M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”), and the Plaintiff was also jointly owned by the Defendant. In light of the circumstances, etc., the Plaintiff embezzled the Defendant’s funds by using the amount withdrawn from the instant account as Defendant’s down payment or operating expenses for Defendant A.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B) Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of the statements made by the victim without credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1) and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.