The judgment below

The conviction part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B shall be reversed in entirety.

Defendant

A. A.

1. The lower court rejected the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation filed by the lower court.

An applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing an application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the part dismissing the application for compensation in the judgment below shall be excluded from the scope of the trial in this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The prosecutor of the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine indicted the initial act of raising funds as embezzlement, and the act of raising funds and using funds cannot be deemed as having identical factual relations, and thus, it is not permissible to change the facts charged of embezzlement by the act of raising funds into the facts charged of embezzlement by the act of using funds.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant A guilty on the ground that the facts charged were changed due to embezzlement by the use of funds, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the limit of Amendments to Bill of Indictment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) In fact, Defendant A was involved in raising funds for raising the capital increase of Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), but there was no fact that the use of the funds was involved, and at the time of the creation, Defendant A knew that the said funds were used to acquire shares of G in the name of the victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim F”).

Therefore, since there was no awareness of the facts charged and no functional control over this part of the facts charged that non-funds have been used for the purpose of the capital increase of an individual, it is not liable as a common principal.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing) and his defense counsel are on the date of the first oral argument in the first instance trial.