The judgment of the court below (including the portion of innocence) shall be reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts, etc.) The fact that there was a false disclosure on the capital increase for consideration and the source of funds from exercising the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to obtain a certain amount of money different from the facts. However, this is merely a violation of Defendant A’s duty to make a simple disclosure due to the mistake of the person in charge of the right to exercise the right to

B) During the process of purchasing the right to receive new shares of occupational embezzlement against the victim C, G and I used the loan of C from the executives of C. However, this is intended to prevent damage to the company in relation to the operation of the company and the issuance of bonds by lawful procedures. Therefore, Defendant A did not have any intent to acquire unlawful profits.

C) The victim C’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against the victim C has paid KRW 600 million to AL Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AL”), which is a corporation operated D around October 30, 208, and even around November 6, 2008, KRW 300 million to the O Co., Ltd. (O) which is a corporation operated D (hereinafter “O”). However, all of them cannot be deemed as embezzlement because the loan or advance payment was made in accordance with lawful procedures.

D) A victim P Co., Ltd. (P) paid KRW 900 million as a loan to Defendant A around April 3, 2009, on the fact that the victim P Co., Ltd. violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) for the victim P Co., Ltd., but such payment was made through lawful procedures. Defendant A was merely the representative director of P Co., Ltd., the parent company, and thus, Defendant A cannot be said to be a person in charge of the business of keeping P, a subsidiary’s self-sufficiency enforcement.

E) Defendant A’s loan.