A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the defendant) only delegated limited authority such as the shareholder proposal right and the right to peruse the register of shareholders from minority shareholders, but did not have been delegated with voting rights, and there was no intention to be delegated with voting rights from the beginning.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the premise that he was delegated with voting rights from each minor shareholder as shown in the attached Form of the judgment below

B. The lower court’s sentence (a fine of KRW 3,00,000, and a suspended sentence) is too heavy or unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, has presented the following circumstances: (i) around December 2014, the Defendant proposed a campaign for minority shareholders of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) through the website, including the PPSnet and the next CC; and (ii) requested the submission of delegation form for the purpose of passing a shareholders’ proposal at a general meeting of shareholders; (iii) the Defendant’s proxy form presented by the Defendant includes the contents of “all delegation of authority to exercise voting rights”; (iv) the Defendant requested the submission of delegation form for exercising voting rights at a general meeting of shareholders (Evidence No. 127); and (iii) the proxy form prepared and sent by the shareholders of D Co., Ltd., including E, to the Defendant, stated that “(D) stocks are related to D stocks,” Article 363-2 of the Commercial Act, Article 396 (Stockholder’s Right to Make Proposal) of the Commercial Act; and Article 54-6 (Public Prosecutor’s Right to Request Access) of the Commercial Act.