The judgment below

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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (with respect to property in breach of trust), the franchise I franchiser is not in the position of a person who deals with the affairs of a franchisee in relation to food supply and store interior works.

The provision that a franchiser provides business opportunities to the other party to a transaction, such as a logistics company, and receives business fees from the other party to the transaction shall not constitute the receipt of money in exchange for illegal solicitation.

Since the J (hereinafter referred to as the “J”) established and did not contribute to the right to receive business fees in kind to the J while establishing the J (hereinafter referred to as the “J”), the business fees shall accrue to the Defendant A even after the establishment of the J.

Since there was no change in the transaction relationship with Defendant B and M before and after March 26, 2008 established by the J, there was no new illegal solicitation due to the establishment of the J.

On March 28, 2011, KRW 705,155,825 received from Q Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Q”) after the instant commission contract (hereinafter “instant commission contract”) was paid as advertising expenses, and the amount received from M was paid as “the price for the provision of interior drawings, supervision, and business opportunities.”

The money received from M has some parts of the Indian construction contract concluded before the J is established, and the money has also been transferred to the J juristic person account.

2) The amount recognized the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and embezzled was returned to the victim J.

Considering these circumstances, the sentence of the court below (two years and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (as to the Defendants, Defendant B did not exceed KRW 400 million for sales proceeds from erroneous fish.

The period including the statement and the profits from the sales of calcated fish shall begin with the police officer in 2009 in 2009.