The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A (excluding the part of the compensation order) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The order for compensation that the court below ordered Defendant A (unfair sentencing and unfair compensation order) to the effect that the punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A is too unfair (one year and six months of imprisonment) and that Defendant A pay the full amount of KRW 520,000,000 of the embezzled amount to Defendant A is unfair.

Defendant

A, on the grounds of appeal, there were arguments of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as well as unfair sentencing, but at the fourth trial date of the trial of the first instance court, both of the facts charged of this case are recognized, and only on the grounds of appeal, alleged unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal. However, on the part of the order for compensation by the lower

B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of sentencing, the crime of this case regarding Defendant A’s assertion of sentencing was committed with Defendant A, who is an accomplice, by being entrusted with the duty of collecting claims by the victim with the collection of claims by the victim, but did not deliver the collection money to the victim and distributed the money to each other and consumed at will. In light of the amount of embezzlement, etc., the liability for the crime

The Defendant used 300 million won that he received for the establishment of an illegal gambling game site, etc. to consume all of them, and did not recover from damage up to now.

However, it appears that Defendant B actually received money from the debt collection company by performing the debt collection business is Defendant B, and Defendant B did not immediately inform Defendant A of the actual amount of the debt collection, and Defendant A appears to have been able to use the money collected by Defendant B to the Defendant’s wife account, and only transferred KRW 300 million to Defendant A’s wife account. At the time, Defendant B clearly recognized “the total amount collected by Defendant B from the debt collection company.”

It is not visible.

Defendant

A up to the original judgment, the instant case is rendered.