A. Of the facts charged against Defendant A1, among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 1, the amount indicated one time to 40 to 47 times a list of crimes as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the amount of this part”) was delivered by P, which is the former representative director of Defendant I (hereinafter “I”), who is not the Defendant.

In other words, the amount of the sale proceeds of EMC SDR is not simultaneously conducted with the issuance of a structural invoice of the above product, but at the expiration of about 3 to 6 months from the date of issuance of a general invoice, and the Defendant paid part of the sales proceeds in the form of rebates to F. The Defendant’s actual commencement of business as the representative director of I is around January 2013, and the amount of the sales proceeds of the contract concluded from that time is deemed to have been made at the end of at least 3 months from that time. Thus, this portion of the amount granted to F before April 2013 is paid by P, the former representative director of F, who is not the Defendant, to F, for the part of which the transfer contract was concluded on January 2013 and paid part of the amount.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in misunderstanding the fact that the court below recognized this part of the money as the re-amount of the defendant's breach of trust.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants B and C (unfair sentencing) (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too unfasible and unfair.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, namely, ① the Defendant acknowledged the whole facts charged in this case, including the fact of granting money from the prosecutor’s office to the court below (the Defendant on May 201).