The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On the date of the first trial of Defendant A and C at the trial, Defendant A and C explicitly withdrawn the misapprehension of the legal principles on the evidence of breach of trust, acceptance of property in breach of trust, and conspiracy of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement). Defendant C explicitly withdrawn the misapprehension of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles on occupational embezzlement. Defendant A and C explicitly withdrawn the misapprehension of the legal principles on the number of crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) on the date of the fourth trial of the trial of the first instance.

1) The fact that Defendant A received the remittance of KRW 10 million from the victim I, by misunderstanding the facts as to fraud and defense violation (Defendant A). However, the victim I agreed to invest KRW 30 million in G Co., Ltd. (former trade name: H: hereinafter “G”) and become a listed director. Of them, the victim I did not make an investment of KRW 10 million, but did not cause a disaster, such as director.

In addition, at the time of the investment of KRW 10 million, Defendant A did not mean that “I would give a number of contracts to the J Mayor for a good fluority.”

After that, 10 million won invested by the victim I in G was offset by the advertising cost for the company operated by the victim I in consultation with the victim I.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and violating the rules of evidence.

2) The assertion that the Defendant C is a personal fund of the Defendant Company (Defendant A and C) by mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principle as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) - The withdrawal amount stated in the daily list of crimes attached to the original judgment is the personal fund of Defendant C who received or borrowed personal investment by Defendant C, and is not the funds owned by the victim M. (hereinafter “victim M”).

Even if part of the above money is recognized as being the victim M, Defendant C.