All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal on the sole ground of unfair sentencing as to the judgment of the court of first instance, where the Defendant appealed on the ground of unfair sentencing, and the appeal was dismissed, the Defendant cannot be deemed as the grounds of appeal that there was an error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with respect to the judgment of first instance. This case also applies where the lower court reversed the judgment of the first instance and sentenced to a more minor sentence than

Furthermore, even if the defendant appealed the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground of unfair sentencing along with other grounds for appeal, if he later withdraws the grounds for appeal other than unfair sentencing before the decision of the court of first instance is rendered, it shall not be deemed as the grounds for appeal that there was an

(2) On October 26, 2006, Defendant A appealed on the judgment of the court of first instance and claimed the misapprehension of the legal principle of unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal, but on February 12, 2014, Defendant A withdrawn all the grounds for appeal other than unfair sentencing on the 10th day of the judgment of the court below. Defendant A’s grounds for appeal, which the court below deemed as the grounds for appeal, i.e., the misapprehension of the legal principles on the violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies and the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, i.e., the violation of the Act on External Audit and the violation of the Act on the Securities and Exchange, i.e., the misunderstanding of the legal principles on the ex post facto act of embezzlement and the specification of facts charged, and the violation of the rules of evidence. Thus, Defendant

2. As to the Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the lower court granted KRW 30 million to Defendant A.