A. In other words, the purchase of shares by F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) was mostly made out of Defendant A’s funds in relation to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. In other words, the purchase of shares by F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

In addition, since Defendant A did not have donated F’s shares to D, the Defendants did not know that the said shares were transferred in the name of D, among which Defendant B made registration of change as a shareholder of F.

Therefore, the complaint of this case does not constitute a false accusation, or does not constitute the defendant A, and the defendants did not have intention to enter the original copy of the fair deed and to exercise the original copy of the false statement.

2) As to the occupational embezzlement, the Defendants embezzled F’s money, or the Defendants had the intent of embezzlement.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 1 year and 3 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 4 months of suspended sentence, 1 year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendants asserted the same as the argument in this part of the appeal, instead, in the original judgment, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail, with a detailed statement on the judgment under the title “the determination of the Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion”.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the circumstances stated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations by the defendants, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of the instant case’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, the sentencing of the lower court against the Defendants is against the Defendants.