Part concerning Defendant B and C shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

B Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant C.

A. Defendant B (unfair sentencing) and his defense counsel explicitly withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts on the first trial date.

Defendant

The sentence of the lower court against B (three years of suspended sentence to three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing), misunderstanding of facts, and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant appears to prepare expenses for performing his duties to W.

It is not true that B and C have attempted to commit the crime of breach of trust by proposing or proposing C to provide W with the cost of promoting the work.

C’s statement refers to reasonable doubt that it was against objective facts, consistent, and false statements by intimidation by the police. While W’s statement is contrary to empirical rule and common sense, and is in conflict with W’s own investigative agency’s statement, the court below found the Defendant guilty of aiding and abetting the Defendant’s misappropriation as its main evidence. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

In addition, the judgment of the court below that recognized the intention of aiding and abetting the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, although the defendant only opposed to C's inquiry that he would provide W with money.

2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The sentence of each court below on Defendant B (the three-year suspended sentence), C (the three-year suspended sentence in June 2), and A (the two-year suspended sentence in June 2) is unfair because the sentence of each court below on Defendant B (the three-year suspended sentence in imprisonment), A (the two-year suspended sentence in June 2) is too unhued.

2. The lower court held that among the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant A conspired with Defendants B and C, from April 21, 2010 to May 22, 2013, the Defendant offered KRW 156,50,000 in cash, when making an illegal solicitation for a total of 56 times from around 21, 2010 to May 22, 2013, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table of the lower judgment, the Defendant committed the instant crime beyond facilitating Defendant A and C’s re-crime of breach of trust.