A. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the above defendant A (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding the facts, ① the Defendant was actually engaged in the construction or remodelling at the time of receiving the goods, such as drums, from AD, and accordingly, Defendant B (1) was anticipated to receive the deposit in advance from the service provider to pay the goods to AD. As such, there was no criminal intent of defraudation by the Defendant.

② At the time of borrowing KRW 50 million from AJ on March 28, 2013, the Defendant had the ability to make a change with the operating profit. However, on March 2013, 2013, the Defendant had no intention to commit the crime of defraudation by deceptioning the principal due to the enemy’s occurrence from around March 2013.

In addition, on April 11, 2013, the Defendant was thought to pay KRW 45 million to the AJ as 45 million from May 201, 201, but the Defendant did not comply with the promise and did not have the intention of fraud since he did not pay the borrowed money to the AJ.

Nevertheless, the court below found the above facts charged guilty, and the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the court below to the above defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The prosecutor (as to embezzlement against Defendant A) paid the successful bid price at the auction procedure and received the delivery of the successful bid price. Thus, even if a movable owned by BE other than the Defendant, the public prosecutor acquired the ownership in good faith even if the movable property owned by BE other than the Defendant.

The defendant is aware that the owner of the health center in this case was changed to BB through auction and through a lease agreement with BB.