The judgment below

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

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the part on the receipt of property in breach of trust and the part on the receipt of property in breach of trust) Defendant A received money from Defendant B, but this is not an exchange in return for an illegal solicitation, such as the facts charged, but an exchange is made under the pretext of investment in the management project of the Solsan Corwon CB, a stock company operated by Defendant A (hereinafter “AB”), a corporation operating by Defendant A (hereinafter “AB”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendants as the crime of taking property in breach of trust and the crime of taking property in breach of trust and the crime of taking property in breach of trust is erroneous as follows.

① The money received by the Defendants was not exchanged for KRW 80 million on six occasions as indicated in the judgment of the court below, but exchanged for KRW 84 million on five occasions, and the Defendants also prepared receipts clearly.

② Defendant A is recognized by objective data that most of the investments received from Defendant B was actually used for the AB’s business.

③ The lower court, in light of the Defendants’ relationship, made an implied solicitation.

It was presumed that there was an illegal solicitation of any content in detail, and there was no specific specification as to how such an illegal solicitation was agreed between the Defendants.

④ The lower court determined that “A was subject to rebates from theU”

W andO’s statements were used as evidence of guilt, and the above statements were made again, and thus inadmissible as well as inadmissible as well as credibility (Defendant B).2) The sentence that the court below sentenced the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and half years and additional collection of 80 million won, Defendant B: imprisonment of one year and half year and 80 million won, and 2 years of suspended execution in August) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In fact, the Defendant, despite being aware that he did not have an obligation to return the investment funds to P, etc., causes damage to the Victim K by having the Defendant prepare a certificate of fairness in the lending and borrowing contract.