The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

However, against the above defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ detailed contents of the instant shares, including Defendant A, B, C, misunderstanding of facts, and misunderstanding of legal principles, are as follows.

2. The summary of the facts charged is as stated in the indictment.

Transfer was made in accordance with the general meeting of shareholders and the resolution of the board of directors of the victim corporation G (hereinafter referred to as "G").

The transfer value of the instant shares is determined by the free will of the parties to the contract, but cannot be necessarily bound by the appraisal value of certified public accountants, etc.

Since the transfer of equity in this case was made before the conclusion of a collective lease contract with J, it cannot be reflected in the appraised value of equity in this case at the time of the transfer of equity in this case, and it is difficult to view that the Defendants had a duty of care to re-contribute the equity in this case which had already been appraised by

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the transfer of shares in this case constitutes an act in violation of the Defendants’ occupational duties, or that property damage was inflicted on G in the transfer of shares in this case, and the Defendants cannot be found to have committed a breach of trust

The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (five years of suspended sentence for three years of imprisonment, five years of community service, 240 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant D misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have properly assessed the instant shares of G.

G’s transfer of the instant shares was properly made within the area of business management judgment, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant shares were sold at a low price.

Even if the transfer of shares by the other Defendants constitutes a crime of breach of trust, the Defendant does not constitute “a person who administers another’s property affairs,” but did not participate in conspiracy or conduct as an accomplice.

The court below erred in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.