The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s imprisonment (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(Defendant A and his defense counsel withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the second trial date on March 21, 2013). (B)

Defendant

B1) Error misunderstanding of facts, Inc. F (hereinafter “F”).

A) The representative director of the victim medical corporation and the victim medical corporation foundation (hereinafter “victim foundation”).

(2) Defendant A, a financial director, issued a promissory note of the Victim Foundation to raise the F golf course construction fund. Defendant B did not delegate the issuance of a promissory note of the Victim Foundation to Defendant A for the said purpose, and Defendant A was unaware of the fact that the promissory note was issued for that purpose. As such, Defendant A did not engage in a public offering with Defendant A on the charge of occupational embezzlement. Moreover, Defendant A did not have any false fact on the part of Defendant A’s arbitrary issuance of a promissory note under the name of the Victim Foundation, and thus, Defendant A did not constitute an illegal accusation. (2) The lower court’s punishment of unfair sentencing (five years of suspended sentence for three years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant A prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant A.

In the first instance of the trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of indictment to add "Article 44 subparagraph 1 and Article 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits" to the facts charged as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act as stated in the judgment below, and this court permitted it, thereby changing the subject of the judgment in the judgment below

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below which sentenced one punishment by deeming the above violation of the Labor Standards Act and the remaining criminal facts as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the part against Defendant A cannot be maintained as it is.

B. Determination on Defendant B (1) judgment of the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts