A. Error of mistake

1) Typely representative director;

The Defendant is not the subject of acquiring the shares and management rights of Nonindicted Co. 3 from Nonindicted Co. 2, but merely the representative director on the ground of Nonindicted Co. 4, and thus cannot be the subject of each of the instant crimes.

2) An act ex post facto after the occurrence of a penalty

The payment of KRW 6 billion to non-indicted 2 with shares and the transfer proceeds of management was made on March 31, 201, and the pledge was established on the deposit of non-indicted 3 corporation deposited in KRW 6 billion on the same day. On April 7, 2011, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "violation of Trust") (hereinafter referred to as the "violation of Trust") and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) that withdrawn the deposit of non-indicted 3 corporation on July 11, 201 (hereinafter referred to as "Embezzlement") are an act ex post facto act.

B. Sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of representative director in form

In full view of the evidence, the lower court determined that the Defendant was guilty of the crime of breach of trust and the crime of embezzlement, after comprehensively taking account of the following facts: (a) the Defendant entered into a contract to acquire the shares and the right of management of Nonindicted Co. 3 under his own name; (b)

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the fact-finding by the court below is just in finding the facts of the court below, and in addition to these circumstances, in addition to ① the defendant directly signed the contract on the acquisition of shares and management rights, ② the defendant again asked the non-indicted 1 (the non-indicted 1 in the judgment of the court of the court of the Supreme Court) to lend money for more than two months after taking office as the representative director after taking office as the representative director, ② the defendant again requested the non-indicted 1 (the non-indicted 1) to lend money on May 9, 201, and even after the termination of the pledge right and withdrawal of the company deposit, the non-indicted 1 directly handled the matters concerning the operation of the company or the disposal of the shares by borrowing from the non-indicted 5, etc. on July 13, 2011, the judgment of the court below that the defendant deemed the

Therefore, the defendant's argument in this part of the appeal is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of an act of ex post facto ex post facto action

On March 31, 2011, the Defendant paid KRW 6 billion in the transfer price of stocks and management rights to Nonindicted 2, and on the same day, on the premise that the pledge was established against the deposit of Nonindicted 3 Co. 3’s company’s KRW 6 billion, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s assertion that it is unnecessary to further examine the remainder of the issue on April 7, 201, by comprehensively taking account of the evidence, that the time when KRW 6 billion was paid to Nonindicted 2 was recognized as April 7, 201.

The court below's findings of fact and determination are justified in light of the results of the research on the current financial transaction status of the Director of PB Center of the Bank of Korea (hereinafter omitted) under the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

C. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

There are extenuating circumstances, such as the circumstance in which the Defendant participated in the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant does not seem to have taken special benefits due to the instant crime, and that there is no previous charge.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the amount of damage in this case exceeds 6 billion won; (b) the Defendant committed each of the crimes in this case during the period of repeated crime; and (c) the crime of embezzlement and the crime of breach of trust in the sentencing guidelines for embezzlement and breach of trust constitutes all types of four (5 billion won or more, and less than 30 billion won) and the scope of sentencing in the basic area is four years and seven years; and (c) other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, character, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (d) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Han-yang (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The written opinion, etc. presented after the lapse of the period for appeal submission is considered to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed