A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: With respect to the acquitted portion of Defendant B’s capital gains in breach of trust (the capital gains in breach of trust of KRW 10 million around January 2009), Defendant B’s capital gains in breach of trust of KRW 10 million around January 2009, and the capital gains in breach of trust of KRW 64 listed in the attached Table 2 No. 64 of the List of Crimes in the judgment of the court below are identical to the capital gains in breach of trust and the capital gains in breach of trust, and I (the “I”) is equal to the capital gains in breach of trust and the capital gains in breach of trust.

[] In light of the fact that all cash have been granted with the same solicitation in relation to the delivery of products, and the fact that Defendant A still has been in a position to affect the commencement of the sale of products (title) although the duties entrusted inside the company in question were different, each of the above crimes has been repeatedly committed for a certain period under the criminal intent of a single and continuous crime, and the damage legal interests are the same, which is a single comprehensive crime. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the fact that the court below acquitted Defendant B on the charge of giving 10 million won in breach of trust around January 2009, in light of the fact that each of the above crimes is in a substantive concurrent relationship, and thus, it was unlawful by misapprehending the legal principles that Defendant A received 150 million won in total from the home shopping delivery company, etc. by taking advantage of his superior position, and that Defendant A actively demanded the so-called 150 million won in total from the home shopping delivery company and the so-called 150% in advance to conceal the crime by using the name of money.