The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for three years, Defendant B, and C shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) asserted as the ground of appeal on the ground of misunderstanding of the original legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts as to the facts constituting the crime No. 2 (C) as indicated in the lower judgment, but withdrawn the above assertion through a written opinion from June 13, 2016.

1) Fact-misunderstanding (as to No. 1 of the facts stated in the judgment below, as to No. 1 of the No. 1 of the evidence (as to the B president) and evidence No. 2 of the evidence (as to the repayment of Korean investors), each of the documents (hereinafter “the documents of this case”) was reduced on May 24, 2007 by the Defendant in the Brazilh detention house.

G Documents issued a signature from G by visiting and signing, and the Defendant’s disposal of I’s shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) held by H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) was merely a faithful implementation of the direction of G, a shareholder who is the actual one of the victimized companies, according to the above documents, and thus, did not constitute a crime of breach of trust against the victimized company. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that it was guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court (four years of imprisonment) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles), or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant believed that the signature of G sent out to the instant documents was true, and the Defendant merely committed all business by neglecting the representative director under the name of the victimized company and processing them according to the direction of A, who is the chief of G’s office, and thus, the Defendant did not have an intention of breach of trust and the liability should be dismissed. However, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, even though it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C(unfair sentencing) The defendant is also on the ground of the initial mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles.