The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Defendant A of the facts charged in this case was the representative director of the Bank of Bankruptcy and the Bank of Bankruptcy and the Bank of Bankruptcy and the Bank of Bankruptcy and the Bank of Bankruptcy and the Bank of Bankruptcy (Holding 100% of shares) which mainly focuses on the development, etc. of the commercial site in the Namyang-si, Nam-si, and Defendant B was the director of the Bank of Bankruptcy and the Bank of Bankruptcy.

On November 9, 2006, K Co., Ltd., which is a victim, lent a total of KRW 2 billion, including KRW 750,000,000,000 and KRW 1.25,000,000,000,000 to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., which was jointly established by Defendant A with the victim. On September 2, 2007, G Co., Ltd lent a total of KRW 2,03,000,000 to H Co., Ltd. established separately by Defendant A, and around September 12, 2007, H loaned a loan of KRW 2,03,00,000 ( KRW 435,000,00) and loans ( KRW 1.5,000,00) to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd, which was jointly established by Defendant A, a U.S. company, in the form of an investment and loan of KRW 1.5,000.

However, under the victim's understanding on June 28, 2008, which is two days prior to the due date of the above loan obligation, Defendant A did not pay the due date after the extension of one year on June 30, 2009. Accordingly, in order to preserve the above loan obligation, the victim, a creditor, filed an application for provisional seizure of the claim with the KAH as a third debtor, and received the decision of acceptance on March 18, 2010. The plaintiff was awarded a favorable judgment on August 12, 2010. In order to enforce the compulsory execution, the plaintiff was the debtor of the KAB and applied for a collection order with H as a third debtor, and received the decision of acceptance on October 26, 2010 by Defendant H's request for a seizure order with respect to the shares held by Defendant H in the judgment of winning the claim for reimbursement which is a separate title.

Defendant

A In order to be relieved of the specific risk of compulsory execution from the victim as above, A, with the consent of Defendant B, at the G Office of the Dispute Resolution around November 10, 2010, there was no delay in payment of a large amount of wages from 2006 to 2010.