A. According to the records of Defendant A (Submission of the Reasons for Appeal), even if Defendant A received a notice of receipt of the records of trial on May 27, 2015, Defendant A failed to submit a statement of reason for appeal within the submission period, and the petition of appeal does not contain any reason for appeal, and even if examining the records, the reason for ex officio investigation cannot be found. Thus, Defendant A’s appeal should be dismissed pursuant to Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as Defendant B’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal are ruled against the Defendants, the decision to dismiss the appeal should be made without separately rejecting the appeal.

2) Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts and Sentencing of sentencing) believed Defendant A’s horse that only KRW 300 million should be exempted from the purchase price of the certificate of beneficial interest to the victim H (hereinafter “victim”), and used the remaining KRW 300 million in the purchase price, and did not constitute embezzlement of KRW 300 million in collusion with Defendant A, as stated in the facts charged, while being kept for the victim.

Even if conviction is recognized, the punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant B (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: the crime of fraud and fabrication of each private document committed on February 17, 2010 as indicated in the lower judgment – imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months, suspension of execution for two years, suspension of execution for two years, and embezzlement for the person on February 29, 2012 as indicated in the lower judgment; the crime of imprisonment for one year and two months, suspension of execution for two years, suspension of execution for two years as indicated in the lower judgment; and each of the above investigation documents - fine for seven million won, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, suspension of execution for two years) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that Defendants B did not have a status of custody of KRW 600 million for the victim, the lower court held that the Defendants did not have a status of custody of KRW 600 million against Defendant A.