Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant A among the judgment of the court below of second instance.

1. The second judgment of this court (as to the second judgment of the court below), which found Defendant A not guilty of embezzlement and fraud on September 23, 2013 among the facts charged against Defendant A, and of fraud on the part of the amount obtained by deceit (as to KRW 41,240,00) which found Defendant A guilty among the facts charged against Defendant AJ, and sentenced Defendant A guilty of the remaining facts charged against the said Defendants.

Therefore, since only the above defendants appealed the guilty part of the judgment of the court of second instance, and the part of the judgment of the court of second instance regarding the above defendants is separated and confirmed as it is, the scope of the judgment of the court of second instance as to the above defendants shall be limited to the convicted part, while the judgment of the court of second instance pronounced not guilty as to the facts of embezzlement against the defendant AE and sentenced not guilty as to the embezzlement aiding and abetting which are included in the above facts of crime, but this judgment of the court of second instance found only guilty as to the part of the facts of simple crime, and even if the defendant appealed,

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the case of Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A’s judgment of the lower court on the first instance judgment 2014 high group 1007 case, it is unreasonable to hold the Defendant liable for the false tax invoice issued by Defendant on September 1, 2013 on the ground that the Defendant was not well aware of the issue of tax invoice, even though he was not aware of it.

B) Of the judgment below of the court below of 2014 high group 3093 cases, the court below found the Defendant guilty on this part on the ground that B made a direct phone call and carried out P/L discount and charged the Defendant with liability.

C) As to the decision of the court below 4, the EL’s proposal was the discount of electronic bills, 50% of the discount of electronic bills was the issuer of the bill, and the remainder of 50% was the Defendant and the EL were the use of the bill.

The EL received the discount of the electronic bill of this case.