1. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (as to Defendant 1’s crime No. 1-A and No. 1-B as indicated in the judgment of the court below, 72 through 82) at the time of committing this part of the crime, the Defendant was unable to fully recognize the instant fraud or embezzlement of D and F (before May 30, 2014), at the time of committing this part of the crime (before May 30, 2014), (the Defendant withdrawn his allegation of misunderstanding of the remaining facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as at the second trial date of the trial of the court of the first instance). 2) The sentence of the court below which was unfair for sentencing (three years and six months) by the

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unfluent and unfair (a prosecutor withdraws his allegation of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the second trial date). 2.

A. In the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor shall change "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)" to "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)," and "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)" from among the facts charged in the case of this case, "Article 32 of the Criminal Act" is added in the applicable provisions, and "Article 49 (4) 2 and Article 6 (3) 2 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act" is "Article 49 (4) 1 and Article 6 (3) 1 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 13069, Jan. 20, 2015)" to "Article 49 (4) 1 and Article 6 (3) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)", and changed to the above facts charged and applied to this Article.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles against the judgment below is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. Regarding the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine by the Defendant, aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act is committed by the principal offender.