1. The part against Defendant A

A. As to the grounds for Defendant A’s appeal, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged on the following grounds.

In other words, ① The Chairperson of the S Committee and the Assistant to the President Office falls under “public officials” under Article 123 of the Criminal Act.

② Defendant A, a president of the S Committee and an assistant to T in the presidential office, instructed the Department AK of Knowledge Economy to select an AI corporation (hereinafter referred to as “AI”) through re-evaluation procedures, etc.

(3) This constitutes abuse of authority, which is a commission of an ex officio event for the purpose of designating an AI operated by the Z with which it is related to the Z as a central task manager.

④ The statute of limitations has not yet expired, since the criminal act was terminated on December 15, 2009, which the AI was selected as a national task manager, and the public prosecution of this case was instituted before seven years have passed from that time.

B) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the elements for obstructing the exercise of rights and the period of prescription, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the following grounds: (a) the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes related to AI-related investment.

In other words, Defendant A, the president of V, ordered CG, the representative director of BY Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BY”), to make an additional investment in BY assets, violates the occupational duty to protect BY’s property, and Defendant A becomes a joint principal offender for soliciting breach of trust in the course of business with CG, and the intent of breach of trust is also recognized.

B) The lower judgment.