The judgment below

The guilty part (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 피고인 ⑴ 사실오인 및 법리오해 ㈎ 주식회사 E(이하 ‘E’라 한다)에 대한 인수대금 관련 횡령 부분 ① G과 AE은 서로 일면식이 없어 피고인이 만남을 주선하였고, G은 중개브로커에게 주어야 할 중개수수료의 지급을 피하기 위하여 피고인을 통해 E의 대주주 지분 및 경영권 인수 절차를 진행한 점, 인수대금 중 계약금을 지급한 것도 G인 점, G이 추천한 사람이 대표이사 및 이사로 선임되었을 뿐, E의 이사 및 신규사업 이외의 직원 중에서 피고인과 관련되거나 피고인이 추천한 사람은 단 1명도 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인은 E 인수대금의 지급과 관련하여 H과 공모한 사실이 없고, E를 실제적으로 인수하여 경영한 사람은 G이다.

Nevertheless, the court below's finding that the defendant conspireds with H to commit embezzlement against E is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

② The 19 billion won transferred to E’s account was deposited to and immediately deposited into E account in the form of so-called “pro-called,” and at the time, E did not have cash worth 19 billion won. Although the said money was disposed of since it was not the company’s funds belonging to E, it did not actually receive the company’s property, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that recognized the Defendant’s embezzlement or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

③ The obligor who borrowed 19 billion won from L is E, and thus returned 19 billion won to L constitutes the repayment of his/her own debt, and thus, the Defendant did not have the intent of embezzlement or illegal acquisition, and despite that E’s funds were not embezzled, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court recognized the Defendant as embezzlement or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.