All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) 1 and 200 million won are acknowledged upon the request of Defendant A to obtain the status to be allocated shares of J (hereinafter “J”) in the bypass listing procedure after the merger by taking over the old shares of the victim K from the victim K, and Defendant A received 200 million won under the name of the investment money, but the disposal authority of the said investment money is Defendant B, and Defendant A has no authority to dispose of it.

Therefore, Defendant A cannot be deemed to be in the position of a custodian for the above investment funds.

B) Around December 2008, Defendant B requested Defendant B to provide consulting services on behalf of Defendant A to enable Defendant B to make a bypass listing through a merger with J. Thus, Defendant A used KRW 200 million of the investment amount received from Defendant B for the purpose of promoting the private interest of Defendant A himself and M in violation of his duties, despite being used in line with the purpose and purpose stipulated in the above consulting agreement. However, Defendant B did not know of the fact that Defendant A received the above investment amount and the fact that he disposed of it arbitrarily, and thus, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B was in the status of a person in charge of business custody for KRW 20 million of the victim’s investment amount. 2) The lower court’s punishment of unfair sentencing (one year imprisonment and two years of suspended execution for each Defendant) is too heavy.

B. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts can be acknowledged. (A) Defendant B, as the representative director of the I, planned the I’s bypass listing through J and M&A, and on behalf of Defendant A, “I” between Defendant A and Defendant A, on December 2008, planned the I’s bypass listing of the I’s bypassing the I’s investment in the I’s merger with J and M&A, attracting investment in the I’s financing, and issuing shares of I for this purpose.