Of those, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

(b).

A. The lower court’s determination on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts in that it combines two educational facilities, namely, “M Promotion Institute” and “K” (hereinafter “K”), not only means the lifelong educational facilities of this case, but also includes the name of brand that combines two educational facilities, and ② Defendant A and Defendant B corporation (the first incorporation of the establishment was HH corporation, but also changed to the name of the company as of September 17, 2008; hereinafter “instant lifelong educational facilities”) as of December 21, 2010, there was no agreement to presume that Defendant A is an identical business, such as the agreement to distribute profits and losses, and there was no illegality of misapprehending the legal principles as to the content of the AM Promotion Institute’s statement and its profits and losses.

(2) In light of the fact that Q and Z received Defendant A’s future fraudulent or processed tax invoices for the purpose of embezzlement, the lower court’s judgment was erroneous in misapprehending the legal principles as to mistake of facts and conspiracy.

B. Defendants (1) are erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising. ① The lower court’s accusation by the Fair Trade Commission against the Prosecutor General of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, not the Prosecutor General.