The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “the list of crimes”) is limited to the list of crimes in the attached Form No. 1.

) 300,000 won in transfer to X is merely a return of the remainder of the deposit for lease after the termination of the lease from the lessor X of the building, and the Defendant A is not a money invested in the F’s gift certificates development project. ② The remittance amount of KRW 5,40,000 for the Y listed on Nos. 73 of the Criminal List No. 740, Jun. 11, 2014, Defendant A remitted the purchase price of cosmetics to Y on June 12, 2014, and transferred the difference (6,000,000 won) from Y on June 12, 2014 following the following day, and was returned from Y on June 12, 2014. 2) The difference (6,000,000 won) is too unfair.

B. The punishment of the first instance court (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 200 hours of community service) against Defendant B is too unreasonable.

(2) The defendant B's defense counsel submitted the grounds for appeal with the exception of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal, but there are matters to be tried ex officio with respect to the fact-finding and sentencing of the first instance court as follows. Thus, the dismissal of appeal is not decided. 2.

A. The crime sight table of this case was organized based on the transaction details in the new bank account of the F Co., Ltd. and the Japanese bank account (No. 401 pages of investigation record), and unlike X/Y did not state it as the complainant or witness at an investigative agency, and the same applies to the first instance court.

However, the witness Z made a statement in the appellate court to the effect that the remittance amount stated in No. 73 of the Crime List No. 73 is consistent with the Defendant A’s argument (it is clearly stated that it was traded with lending the same Y account) and submitted the confirmation document to the same effect.

As to the remittances stated in No. 40. AX is the defendant in a written application for no punishment submitted by the appellate court.