All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A(1) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”) (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.,” omitted the name of “Co., Ltd.”) had loans worth approximately KRW 8.9 billion ( principal KRW 7 billion, interest KRW 1.9 billion) with respect to the parking lot site located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant parking lot site”). However, Defendant A’s ownership of the said parking lot site was exceeded L, and the said loan claim was disposed of to repay it.

In addition, in order to solve the registration of the establishment of a mortgage and the registration of provisional seizure on the above parking lot site, approximately KRW 6.1 billion was paid to Defendant B.

Since then, Defendant A received 11 billion won out of the proceeds from the sale of the above parking lot site as the collection of the above loan claim, and the Defendants conspired not to embezzlement the above 11 billion won as L owned by the Defendants.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) Even if Defendant A did not receive KRW 11 billion out of the proceeds from the sale of the instant parking lot as the collection of the above loan claims, Defendant A merely borrowed the above KRW 11 billion from Defendant B, and thus cannot be the subject of embezzlement. However, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) out of the charge of occupational embezzlement related to the sale price of the instant parking lot site, the 11 billion won portion (the amount that Defendant A and the joint criminal part L with Defendant A borrowed fromO or paid forO was KRW 13,685,622,377, and accordingly, Defendant B transferred the sales price of the instant parking lot site to the name account managed by theO or withdrawn it as a check and paid to Defendant A. As such, Defendant B paid KRW 11 billion out of KRW 13.5 billion to the name account managed by theO.