A. The Defendant, with the comprehensive understanding or consent of C, prepared and exercised a written agreement on the transfer of shares in C name.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below, which was based on the premise that the defendant prepared and exercised the above document without any authority, is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

The Defendant made a statement in the statement of grounds for appeal only that “the Defendant asserts innocence,” and the date of trial at the trial at the court of appeal only states the misunderstanding of facts as the grounds for appeal. However, in the statement of grounds for appeal duly submitted by the Defendant, the “unjustifiableness in appearance”

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, in the situation where D, a corporation operated by the defendant, agreed to accept B's share (15%) from C, but there was an objection about whether to pay the price or the amount thereof, it can be sufficiently recognized that C prepared a written agreement on transfer of shares in its name as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below without C's consent and exercised it.

On such premise, the first instance court’s judgment is just and does not seem to have been erroneous.

Defendant’s assertion of mistake cannot be accepted.

B. There are no new circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing after the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing is rendered.

In full view of various circumstances that constitute the sentencing conditions appearing in the records and arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing does not seem to be too heavy beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion.