Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the instant case under the assumption that the Defendant can be a single shareholder of C, so it erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. The lower court determined, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, that it is difficult to avoid the possibility that the Defendant acquired 60,000 total shares E by offsetting the loan claims for USD 280,000 lent to C and the sales price for shares of KRW 300,00,00, when the Defendant decided to hold a temporary general meeting of shareholders as one shareholder of C around February 28, 2012 and transfer 60,000 to himself/herself as the sole asset of C (hereinafter “E”), the lower court held that there is no possibility that the Defendant would have acquired 60,000 total shares of KRW 60,00,00, and furthermore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, as a director and representative director of E on February 15, 2012, was removed from E’s internal director and the representative director of E’s company, and that the Defendant could not have prepared a written resolution of 20,000 shareholders’ list and 206,205,206.

3. The judgment of the court below was presented.