The part concerning Defendant A and B among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (unfair punishment) who sentenced the lower court to the Defendants (in the case of Defendant A: 5 years and 6 months of imprisonment, 10 months of imprisonment, 5 years of imprisonment, 3 years of imprisonment, 2 years and 3 years of suspension of execution, 3 years of imprisonment, 3 years of suspension of execution) is too uneasible.

B. Defendant A (1) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) in the process of misunderstanding the facts in the process of acquiring the company, ① In the process of acquiring Q Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “R”) and S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S,” hereinafter collectively “R and S”), it led the creditors to procure bonds from the creditors, and Defendant A was not involved in the acquisition, and at that time, Defendant A was not a director or representative director of the instant company.

Therefore, Defendant A was not in the position of a person dealing with the business of the instant company.

② During the process of acquiring the instant company’s bonds from creditors, including Q, etc. and establishment of the right to collateral security on the real estate owned by the instant company.

However, since the company's existing debt was fully repaid and there was no change in the debt amount of the company in this case before and after it, and since the defendant A paid interest to the above creditors in advance, it cannot be deemed that the damage occurred to the company in this case.

Therefore, the acquisition of the company in this form is not an act of breach of trust, and the above defendant did not have the intention of intention of intention of breach of trust or illegal acquisition.

(B) The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) stated in the attached list No. 2-7 and 9-13 of the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below (Embezzlement) was used as the funds of the corporation BA (hereinafter “BA”) among the money stated in the list of crimes in the foregoing list of crimes, and the company of this case lent the funds to BA. The company of this case was normal with the approval of the representative director BS at the time.