The judgment below

The guilty part against Defendant A and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A is a crime under paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court below.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant A was aware of the fact that the instant real estate purchase price was 6.7 billion won, and the actual purchase price was 4.5 billion won, and Defendant A did not know of the fact that the actual purchase price was 4.5 billion won, and there was no fact that Defendants B and C conspired with, or participated in, the crime of embezzlement of the difference.

Even if the crime of embezzlement is recognized against Defendant A, the part of embezzlement amounting to KRW 2.2 billion, which the Defendants spent for the victimized clan, does not constitute embezzlement, but the lower court erred by recognizing the entire amount as embezzlement without the prosecutor’s proof as to the wife.

Since Defendant A knew that the instant real estate purchase price was KRW 6.7 billion, Defendant A knew that the sales contract was genuine, which was submitted by Defendant B to an investigation agency, and did not know that it was forged, and there was no conspiracy with other Defendants regarding the submission of the said contract.

Defendant

B The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) is the real estate purchase price of this case of KRW 6.7 billion, and KRW 2.2 billion stated in the facts charged is the money that Defendant C received from the seller N in the lawsuit of confirming the right to claim payment of deposit money, and it is not the ownership of the

Even if the above KRW 2.2 billion was owned by a clan, Defendant B did not have conspired with other Defendants with regard to the embezzlement of the said money, and Defendant B and A used KRW 1.1.4 billion for the damaged clans among KRW 2.2 billion.

Since the sales contract stating the purchase price of KRW 6.7 billion submitted by Defendant B to an investigation agency is not forged, the crime of uttering of a falsified investigation document is not established on the premise that the above contract was forged.

Defendant

C.