2. Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for four years, Defendant B’s imprisonment for one and half years, and Defendant C.

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, ① Defendant A was registered as a representative on the pretext of W Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “W”), Defendant A was merely involved in the manufacture of card photographs and other products, and did not take overall charge of the management of funds or business sales.

② In light of the process of Defendant A’s participation or the degree of involvement, there is no intention of joint processing or functional control over each of the crimes in the instant case, and thus, a joint principal offender’s liability is not supported.

2) The first deliberation punishment (five years of imprisonment) against Defendant A, who is unfair in sentencing, is excessively unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (Defendant B1) misunderstanding the fact, ① Defendant B was paid KRW 3 million a month between June 2014 and around two months, and was on duty at W, W, E, X, but did not properly know the appearance of the crime, such as card photographic type of business, profit structure, etc., and even X business was merely the role of AA’s subsidy.

② Along with the fact that Defendant B assisted and abetted to commit the instant crime in light of the process of, or degree of, Defendant B’s participation in, the instant crime, the crime committed by the accomplices for a period of two months, no joint principal offender is liable for such crime.

2) The first deliberation punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) against Defendant B, which was unfair in sentencing, is unfair.

(c)

Defendant

C1) Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, ① Defendant C was deprived of the nominal representative director of Co., Ltd. V (hereinafter “V”), because it was impossible to pay additional investments to Y and Z around July 2013, due to the reduction of the existing shares, and was committed with full focus on the research and development of products thereafter.

Defendant

C There is no fact that general control over the production of products, fund management, etc. as shown in the facts charged.

② In light of the process of Defendant C’s participation or the degree of involvement, there is no intention or functional control over joint processing, and thus, the principal offender’s liability for each of the crimes of this case is not supported.

(d)

Defendant

D1) misunderstanding of facts;