1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for nine years;

Defendant

A. Government of the Republic of Korea

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the defendants' assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the defendants asserted that the amount of proceeds from the crime they acquired through the crime of fraud or the crime of occupational breach of trust differs from each other. However, this cannot be viewed as a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the elements of the crime. Therefore, without separately determining this part, the overall consideration of sentencing is required.

shall be taken into account.

From September 8, 2011, the Defendants assumed the role of Defendant A to transmit the serial number of the claim expected to revert to the National Treasury to Defendant B through the intra-company communication network in the expected month to which the claim belongs. Defendant B provided a person with a redemption title necessary for the redemption of the claim and shared the role of receiving the principal and interest of the repayment of the claim from the bank counter.

Nevertheless, among the facts charged in this case, the defendants' conspiracy relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) or the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) after September 8, 2011 is denied, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous,

B. Of the facts charged in this case, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants’ explicit or implicit conspiracy relation is acknowledged with respect to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) or the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) after September 8, 201, and accordingly, Defendant A’s payment to Defendant B constitutes a distribution of criminal proceeds among accomplices, and thus, the crime of giving property in breach

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant A as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, is related to the distribution of criminal proceeds.