The judgment below

The guilty part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On May 16, 2012, the Defendant: (a) introduced a person necessary to borrow the acquisition price of KRW 15 billion in the process of taking over the management right of the Victim H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd”); and (b) there was no fact that the Defendant, in collusion with A, voluntarily withdrawn the funds of the Victim Co., Ltd. and embezzled them for personal purposes.

Nevertheless, the defendant embezzleds funds owned by the victim company in collusion with A.

The judgment of the court below contains an error of mistake of facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A, one year of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B, and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 Gohap736 of 736 of the Defendant’s acquittal part of Defendant A’s acquittal part (misunderstanding of the legal principle) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against the Defendant, despite having a substantive concurrent relation with the Defendant’s final judgment of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) at Seoul High Court Decision 2013No 3486 of 2013, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges on the ground that it is a single comprehensive crime. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of embezzlement in the course of business and the crime of violation of the Act

2) Although the defendant, in collusion with the defendant B, voluntarily withdrawn the funds of the victim company, used them for personal use, and leased two automobiles owned by the victim Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. and transferred them to the third parties such as the bond company, the court below acquitted the defendant as to this part of the facts charged, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles (the acquittal part against Defendant A)

A. The judgment of the court below is legitimate.