The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The decision of the court below on the grounds of appeal is unfair because the punishment (three years and six months of imprisonment) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The instant crime was committed in collusion with I, J, etc. by the Defendant, and its trade name was successively changed to the Victim G Co., Ltd. (H and Z Co., Ltd. since 2009) in a foreign country.

The acquisition of shares of G (hereinafter referred to as "G") results in an external form that is likely to purchase shares by foreigners, thereby embezzling KRW 2.4 billion of G in order to increase the share price of G, and in collusion with F, describing the acquisition price of shares in the half-yearly report and the annual business report in collusion with F, and the criminal liability is heavy.

The Defendant is arguing about the degree of participation in the crime committed with accomplices, such as O and I. At the time, the O has invested approximately 14 billion won in G through capital increase for consideration, etc. with V, and invested in five old shares (580,000,000 won per old shares) of G converted bonds in G with V, I has invested in the two old shares of G converted bonds, and I has already been directly engaged in G by taking over the shares and management rights of G from the Defendant. On the other hand, the Defendant has already transferred the shares and management rights of G to I and has already received KRW 4,00,000,000,000 from I. In consideration of the fact that the Defendant had received two old shares of G converted bonds with F to pay part of the transfer price or to secure payment, the Defendant at the time of the share price increase, but has a considerable economic interest compared to I with G.

B. A. A. G’s share price support: (a) attracting funds through capital increase, etc. for consideration; (b) providing “K”, and (c) taking advantage of overseas stay and work experience, the Defendant received embezzlement funds through the P. BE and other local intermediaries.