The judgment below

Among them, the part against Defendant A, the part against Defendant B, and the part against Defendant B, shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, Defendants 1 and misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant 2’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (refluence) by Defendant B, as stated in the facts charged, endorsed in the name of Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “V”). However, Defendant B, before the payment date of a promissory note for Q which is the holder of a promissory note, completed the registration of the creation of a collateral security right with respect to the land and buildings located in the DZ in the private city owned by Defendant A, which was owned by the Defendant A, and thereafter D Q received reimbursement of the total amount of KRW 1.9 billion from EA that purchased the above land and buildings, and there was no risk of actual property damage to the endorse, who is the endorsement of each of the above promissory notes.

In addition, the defendant B had no intention to acquire the property in breach of trust or to obtain the property in breach of trust because he had made an endorsement of the name V according to the business necessity for the operation of V or his management judgment.

The Defendants’ occupational breach of trust on June 19, 2014 and July 31, 2014: (a) at the time when the Defendants completed the registration for the establishment of a lower right in each real estate owned by V, X Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “X”) actually held loan claims of approximately KRW 400 million, and the AG Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AG”) held approximately KRW 600 million, respectively; and (b) each of the aforementioned registrations for the establishment of a lower right was cancelled on May 29, 2015 and October 6, 2015, and thus, there was no damage to V, the owner of the said real estate.

In addition, Defendant B established the above-mentioned low-income right according to the business necessity for the operation of V or his management judgment, so there was no intention of breach of trust or intention of illegal acquisition.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (for Defendant A, 2 years of imprisonment, 3 years of suspended sentence, 80 hours of community service, 3 years of imprisonment for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) On August 31, 2014, the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts, including the statement of Q Q in breach of trust on occupational duty.