Of them, the part on Defendant C and D shall be reversed.

Defendant

C Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant D for one year.

A. Defendant C (1) As to the part of the facts stated in paragraph (2) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, including the sales of the substitute advertiser, which was prohibited by the following (DAUM) communication (hereinafter “the following”), it is difficult to view it as the property of the victim company, and as it is property interest, it cannot be deemed as property subject to embezzlement. The notice of the advertisement of the substitute advertiser using the service capital cannot be deemed as an unlawful acquisition intent for the Defendant, as it is in accordance with the victim company’s practice to raise advertising sales.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, because it is too unreasonable, in the following cases: the defendant divided the error of unfair sentencing and reflects the defendant, and endeavored to pay damages.

B. Defendant A and B (In the judgment of the court below), although the Defendants acknowledged some of the facts constituting the crime in paragraph (3) of the judgment below, they did not commit the crime except this, they were convicted of all the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and sentenced the Defendants to all the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below.

C. (1) In light of the fact that the prosecutor (defendant D, A, and B) is the actual principal offender of the instant crime, such as exercising overall control over the practice and securing and managing the borrowed account, and that 200 million won out of the profits acquired from the instant crime is personally useful, the sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant D (three years of suspended execution in one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unfford and unreasonable.

B. Defendant A and B recognized a criminal act by an investigative agency, but did not make all efforts to recover damage while denying the criminal act in the court, and the crime was bad. In light of the fact that the court below committed the crime, the court below is against the above Defendants.