All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In relation to the portion of embezzlement of KRW 2.750 million by means of a false land purchase service contract with D, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, and the company name omitted the part of “stock company”, the land purchase service contract entered into with D is not false, nor is the land purchase service contract entered into with D, and the paid service price was used for repayment to the creditors who lent the funds for the instant business. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the amount equivalent to the service price was embezzled.

B) With respect to the portion of embezzlement of KRW 1.694 billion for PF loans through a false performance-based calendar contract with D, S, and the victim B (hereinafter “victim”) received operating expenses paid from D from D in order to carry out the business on the wind of provisional attachment of the claim for operating expenses, which was inevitable, paid the PF loans under the name of the performance-based calendar of D, which was conducted by P and private trust N, a contractor, with the approval of P and private trust.

In addition, since one paid money is used as operating expenses of the damaged company, it can not be considered that the amount of service payment has been embezzled.

C) With respect to the portion of embezzlement of KRW 2.146 million under the pretext of the provisional payment by the representative director, the Defendant used this portion of the money as operating expenses of the victimized company, repayment to the creditors related to the instant business, etc., and the person in charge of accounting was organized as the provisional payment account. As such, the Defendant embezzled the above money.

shall not be deemed to exist.

D) In relation to the portion of embezzlement of KRW 110 million for the non-payment of compensation, the victim company used the said money to recover the illegally sold sales contract for the smooth progress of the business regardless of whether it is legally responsible from the standpoint of the victimized company. As such, the Defendant did not embezzled the said money with the intent of unlawful acquisition.

E) Regarding the part of embezzlement of real estate owned by the victimized Company, the victimized Company C and the Plaintiff normally.