The judgment below

The guilty part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A.

1. Ex officio determination, etc.

A. An overview of the grounds for appeal 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the Defendant, prosecutor, etc.) specific arguments by item are examined in the determination by item. The Defendants are engaged in the “P Stock Company” as such. The name of another company is omitted from the name of another company. The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) for the Urban Development Projects in Pyeongtaek Qu District was reduced as such. The same applies to the violation (the breach of trust) (the first instance judgment).

(B) the violation of the Special Economic Act (Misappropriation) with respect to S’s T Apartment Construction Business (U.B. 1 of the original judgment).

(C) the charge of violation of the Special Economic Act (Misappropriation) with respect to the lending of V funds (in the first instance judgment).

(2) Of the charges of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Sales Price of Y real estate (Embezzlement) (Article 2 of the original judgment), there was no criminal act as described in the facts charged in relation to the pertinent part (defendants). Defendant A was guilty of committing each of the criminal acts against the violation of the Act on Special Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the cancellation of K Pledge; violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning L Financial Lending (Embezzlement); violation of the Act on Special Economic Crimes (Embezzlement); and violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Payment of M Part (Embezzlement) (Embezzlements. 2). The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

(Defendants) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A is too unfilled and unfair.

(b)a prosecutor;

1) In the first instance trial, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to Defendant A and B’s violation of the Act on the Special Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) concerning the Urban Development Projects in the Pyeongtaek Qk District of P, and the violation of the Act on the Special Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) concerning the Construction Projects of Tangible Buildings by Defendants A and C, and the violation of the Act on the Special Economic Crimes (the charge concerning embezzlement) concerning the sale price of the real estate by Defendant A, and the violation of the Act on the Special Economic Crimes concerning the Sale Price of the Real Estate to Defendant A (the charge concerning embezzlement was

Therefore, among the judgment below, the guilty part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B and C shall be tried.