A. Defendant A 1) In collusion with Defendant B as stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the facts constituting a crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below, Defendant A, including mistake of facts, etc., and Defendant N (hereinafter “victim Company”).

A) There was no deception on the part of the Defendant, and there was no intention to obtain money from the victimized company A. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of all the instant criminal acts as stated in the above criminal facts. In so doing, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. As to the crime of Paragraph (1) of the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the crime of Paragraph (1)”), Defendant B (1) was already aware of the circumstances that it is difficult for the victimized company to take over M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) at the time of the investment contract of January 8, 2016 as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant investment contract”).

Therefore, it is not recognized that the Defendants had the intent to commit fraud or deception related to the instant investment contract (hereinafter referred to as “the crime of paragraph (2)”) or to commit the crime of paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter referred to as “the crime of paragraph (2)”).

In relation to the crime of Paragraph 2, the Defendants are entitled to one copy of the preemptive right of KRW 1 billion per face value stated on the facts constituting the crime of Paragraph 2 from the victimized Company (hereinafter “instant securities”).

Although the securities of this case were actually converted to the stocks at the time of issuance of the securities, it was merely a delay in the transfer of the stocks agreed to the part of the victimized company due to the occurrence of the problem of the withdrawal of the stocks that were subsequently converted to the stocks, and in the process, the obligation and obligation with the victimized company was resolved by an agreement separate from the part of the victimized company, and the stocks converted from the securities of this case were not transferred to the victimized company.