The guilty part shall be reversed.

The Defendant is not guilty. The prosecutor of the lower judgment regarding the acquitted portion.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (the guilty part - embezzlement) and Defendant purchased the victim’s shares on October 7, 2013 while giving KRW 43 million to the victim on October 7, 2013. As such, Defendant 1’s owner of the instant bank is the Defendant and thus cannot be the subject of embezzlement.

B) Even if embezzlement is established against the Defendant, the Defendant and the victim agreed to the effect that “the victim shall have the remainder of 80% of the proceeds, if the value of the disposition is more than the principal amount, and the Defendant shall have the remainder of 80%.” As such, the amount of embezzlement is KRW 54 million [the amount of embezzlement = 40 million [the amount of KRW 40 million x 40% of the victim’s share x 40% of the victim’s principal x 40 million x 20% of the victim’s share].

2) The lower court’s sentence (eight months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (non-crime part - fraud) explained that the Defendant would sell the victim with 100 million won by making a minccot with the money. However, the Defendant did not use KRW 100 million with the original purchase price. The Defendant’s profit-making method is an illegal method, which is a violation of the Trademark Act, and did not explain it to the victim; even if the Defendant received N125 chapter from the injured party, the Defendant’s store of the Defendant did not have an intent or ability to pay the benefits promised to the victim, in that it dealt with the products in violation of the mother or the Trademark Act.

In light of the fact that it appears, the defendant deceivings the victim.

It is reasonable to view it.

In addition, the defendant and P, P, and the victim separately followed monetary transactions, and the victim separately delivered money and the victim to the defendant, so P is merely a simple introduction, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant is the other party to the transaction of the victim.

Nevertheless, the Court rendered a not guilty verdict of fraud among the facts charged in this case.