Except for the rejection of an application for compensation order, the part against Defendant A in the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A.

1. An applicant for the scope of adjudication in this Court shall not file an appeal against a judgment dismissing an application for compensation order (Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits), and an application for compensation order shall become final and conclusive immediately.

The court below rejected an application for compensation by an applicant for compensation, and confirmed simultaneously with the declaration that the applicant for compensation is not dissatisfied with this part, and thus, the part of the court below's rejection of order for compensation in the judgment below shall be excluded from the scope

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: In relation to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, mistake of facts, and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant A’s occupational embezzlement on May 26, 2014, Defendant A is the victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim A”).

A) Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Q”)

) Expenses related to the mother's money purchased from them (hereinafter referred to as "the mother's money of this case").

A) The fact that the Defendant Company: (a) ordered the submission of an order by appropriating the excessive amount of KRW 400 million and the employees of the victimized Company to approve the order as they are; (b) however, the excessive amount of KRW 400 million out of the mother price of this case was intended for the payment of honorariums or consulting expenses to T, the representative of the Business Consulting Company Y, who assisted the business operations of the victimized Company; and thus, (c) thus, the intent of unlawful acquisition is not recognized for the Defendant A. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine (the Defendant and his defense counsel stated that this part of the claim was erroneous on the trial date, but the statement of grounds for appeal is written as erroneous in the misapprehension of legal doctrine (which is deemed to have been written as the grounds for appeal 7).

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Defendant .