The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Defendant of the Prosecutor.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s claim that was held by the victim’sO that was the victim’s misunderstanding of facts was not the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant, but the Defendant’s father N and Dong GY’s claim against the Defendant. The amount of the claim is limited to KRW 1,50 million, excluding the joint purchaser U shares, not KRW 300 million of the victim’s claim, and its madoz was repaid by Dong Jae S around December 20, 2007.

Even if there is a claim of KRW 150 million, the Defendant has a claim of KRW 70 million against the victimO, and the actual amount of damage does not reach KRW 150 million.

In addition, the defendant notified the victimO that the N's claim against N's P is false before the victimO seizes the N's dividend claim.

Therefore, on December 20, 2007, the victim did not have a claim any longer than the claim;

Since it constitutes a third party in bad faith that can be set up against such false indication, its prohibition of dividend pay has withdrawn the application for the disposition.

any property damage to the property.

subsection (b) of this section.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the facts, Defendant A and Defendant C are sufficiently recognized that, among February 2013, Defendant A and Defendant C, jointly with one male male (hereinafter “brenick snick snick snick snick snick”), one female on his name (hereinafter “breke snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick s

2) The sentence of each court below’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: 2 years of imprisonment; Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months; 2 years of suspended execution; and 120 hours of community service order) is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor is in the first instance trial, and the part of the second sentence of the second sentence of the part 1506 part of the facts charged in the instant case, stating that “The prohibition of the payment of dividend was applied for a disposition under the order of seizure and collection.”