The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, and for defendant B, six months, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (i) misunderstanding of facts as the de facto representative director of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) and Defendant B was entitled to transfer KRW 84 million to the Defendant’s deposit account in the name of F through Internet banking, as shown in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and thus, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B did not have any authority to make the information processing without authority. ② Defendant A solely transferred the above KRW 84 million, and thus, Defendant A did not have conspired with Defendant A, the lower court convicted Defendant B by misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court on Defendant B of unreasonable sentencing (fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants by the prosecutor (a fine of KRW 3 million) is too uncomfortable and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant B and the Prosecutor on the amendment of the indictment, the Prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that the Defendants’ charges against the Defendants were modified as stated in the following criminal facts, and this Court permitted the same, thereby changing the subject of the trial. As such, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant B's assertion of misunderstanding of facts against the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the modified facts charged.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts, in particular, according to the statement of the Defendants at each court below’s own legal statement of the Defendants, and each police and prosecutor’s office protocol against the Defendants (Article 16, 28, 236, 237 of the Investigation Record), the fact that Defendant A transferred KRW 84 million from the deposit account in the name of the victimized company with the consent of Defendant B. Thus, Defendant B is also the Defendant A.