The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the lower court sentenced to the crimes Nos. 2, 5 and 7 of the Defendant’s decision in the lower judgment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The defendant's crime Nos. 2, 5, and 7 of the judgment of the court below is that "the defendant is the chairperson of H (hereinafter "H"), who works as the chairperson of H, and actually operates H, and ① the defendant joint defendant B (the joint representative director of H) and C (the defendant's h's h), prepare a process certificate with the victim H joint guarantor for the purpose of securing the personal obligation of the defendant et al. to the N, and deliver it to N, thereby in violation of his duties, thereby obtaining proprietary benefits equivalent to KRW 1.55 billion, and causing property damage to the victim to bear the guarantee obligation equivalent to the amount of the above amount, and ② the defendant was present in the lawsuit for confirmation of the shareholder's right filed by K in the lawsuit for confirmation of the shareholder's right filed by the defendant against H, and the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory, and ③ exercise each forged letter in collusion with the joint defendant D and each non-indicted share transfer contract (hereinafter "acquisition").

The defendant is against all of the above crimes.

It seems that the health condition of the defendant is not good.

Defendant

As part of the personal debt against N, the victim H's joint and several liability for N has been partially extinguished.

On the other hand, the defendant could not only have led each of the above crimes but also have enjoyed the greatest economic benefits from each of the above crimes compared to the accomplices.

In the related civil procedure, the defendant actively contributed to the damage of the judicial order by actively perjury.

One of the actual victims of the instant crime, K (the joint representative director prior to the interest of shareholders who hold 50% of H’s shares) did not receive any subscription from the actual victims of the instant crime.

As above, the defendant.