A. Defendant A (the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as well as mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the grounds of appeal on September 20, 2016 during the first trial of the court of first instance. However, Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be viewed as legitimate grounds for appeal since it was asserted after the appeal period was lapsed. Defendant A was a non-permanent director of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “H”), and Defendant A was not involved in H’s principal duties. Defendant A was not involved in his/her principal duties. Defendant A was only involved in his/her duties only if the representative director is absent or the co-defendant C’s instructions are given. Defendant A was not in a position of a custodian in relation to technology development projects expenses of the Korea Institute for Evaluation of Industrial Technology of Victims in Industrial Technology, but the judgment of the court below guilty Defendant A, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to his/her status and mistake of facts as to the status

B. Considering the fact that Defendant B (unfairly unfair) committed a mistake and cooperate in the investigation, Defendant B only executed funds under the direction of Defendant A and Co-Defendant C, Defendant B was seized by the head of Tong in the name of H at the time, and there was frequent entry to avoid this, not money laundering to conceal the crime as the reasons for sentencing of the lower court, and Defendant B may be tried simultaneously with the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (Embezzlement) which became final and conclusive on September 10, 2015, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Paragraph 2 of the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A refers to Defendant A.

Defendant

The main point of the argument is C, and the actual shareholder and the representative director of H are C.

The defendant is not a substantial shareholder or representative of H.