All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that D (hereinafter “D”) failed to pay service charges to the victim company is a result of the failure to participate in the exhibition (hereinafter “instant exhibition”) under the supervision of D, unlike anticipated, by the “G Museum Special Complex -” exhibition (hereinafter “instant exhibition”) under the supervision of D, and the Defendant was aware that the instant exhibition could not pay service charges due to failure in the show, and did not by deceiving the victim company to acquire property benefits.

In detail, the court below held that D borrowed 300 million won as security a ticket even though D received the pre-sale price for tweet from tweaks.

In fact, even if the defendant was the representative director of D and D, there was confusion about assets and liabilities even though they were different between D and D, D had prepared several projects at the time of the instant case, and D had paid some of them to the victim company, and even though D had guaranteed a joint and several obligation, it did not have an intention to disregard the payment of services to the victim company and to pay them to the victim company.

The decision was determined.

The recipient of the service cannot be a property profit, and it is a property profit to exempt the obligation to pay the service price from the obligation to pay. Since D was exempted from civil liability by the declaration of bankruptcy, D took a property profit.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court alleged as to the Defendant’s assertion and application of the summary of evidence and the relevant statutes.