Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 1,00,000 won, and a fine of 1,50,000 won, respectively.

A. Defendant A (1) The Defendant received a promissory note with a face value of KRW 500 million from Defendant B to receive compensation pursuant to the business agreement. Thus, Defendant’s claim is not false.

In addition, as the defendant transferred dividends based on the above claim to G on November 6, 2007, there was no participation in the receipt of dividends or deception.

(2) Since the instant crime was terminated on December 17, 2007, the statute of limitations expired.

B. Defendant B (1) was able to repay the victims’ money with the estimated dividend amount ( approximately KRW 933,532,000) on April 11, 2007 at the time when the Defendant applied for the entire order, and thus, the Defendant did not acquire it intentionally.

In addition, since one G received the dividend in the name of A by using the bond transfer document, there is no act of fraud and there is no substantial damage.

H is a false creditor, and there is no act of deception of fraud for the above reasons.

(2) Since the instant crime was terminated on December 17, 2007, the statute of limitations expired.

2. Examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendants, the prosecutor deleted the part concerning the victim G and H in the facts constituting the offense as indicated in the judgment below in the judgment below and received dividends from the victims.

at KRW 4,342,267, the victim H was able to receive in a dividend proceeding.

Along with the change of KRW 3,229,826, the court below filed an application for changes in indictment with the same content as the statement in the column of "criminal facts" as below, and the judgment of the court below was changed to the subject of the judgment against the Defendants by permitting it. Thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, there are such reasons for ex officio reversal.

Even if the defendants' assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.